Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:39:35 -0500 (EST)
From:      Mikhail Teterin <>
Subject:   Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)
Message-ID:  <>

Next in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On  6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:

>> for example, seems to imply, that there was, in fact, at some point a
>> release 2.9.1 of bfd... It does not quite match the bfd,
> No, that  document describes the  BFD that was included  with Binutils
> 2.9.1. If you looked at another tree of documents you would also think
> that bfd was at version 5.1.1 (ie, the latest GDB).

> What  part about  two of  us telling  you that  there are  no released
> versions  (ie, of  bfd or  libiberty  as a  unique, separate  package)
> aren't  you believing?  I  know the  GNU  toolchain, its  development,
> release cycle, and packaging VERY well.

I believe,  what I see.  And that is, FreeBSD  includes both --  gdb and
gcc, but only one libbfd, thankfully. And  I want to be able to use that
same libbfd  for my own development  and for porting of  other compilers
and tools.

This IS the problem I'm trying to solve.

> WHY do you want to cause this problem of non-matching bits?

So they'll be matched and fixed, leading to a better world 8-)

> This is my last  email you on this topic, as you've  yet to answer the
> question of what problem you are trying to solve!

See above.
>> Plenty of packages come bundled  with the third-party software, and a
>> good port  makes them  build with the  already installed  versions of
>> such software (like zlib, OpenSSL) or with the version available from
>> another port (like c-client).
> Well the  GNU bits do not  do that. If you  report a GDB bug  and they
> find out you weren't using the BFD or Libiberty included with GDB, the
> bug report would probably be dropped on the floor.

Evidently, this does not prevent the FreeBSD project from using the same
libbfd for its gdb and gcc. Even though, the presense of both


is somewhat mistifying to me, but I'm  sure they are built from the same

> No I want to drop Alpha because no one cares about it and not just the
> compiler, but much  more often kernel, WARNS, and  other changes break
> the Alpha.

Alright, so you do find it  nightmarish. But we still support Alpha, for
whatever reason. This  means, that the simple "it would  be a nightmare"
is not an argument.  "It is not worth the trouble" --  would be, and I'm
arguing, that it is not true in this case.
>> > HOW will it  help to add software? What is  so wrong with compiling
>> > the  bundled libiberty  or bfd  that comes  with each  of the  "new
>> > software"  when  building  them?  What  is  so  wrong  with  having
>> > libiberty or bfd statically linked into the "new software"?

>> It  is  _inelegant_  and  is  inconsistent with  our  use  of  shared
>> libraries for most of the rest of the system. Look, we wanted ssh and
>> we added it.

> Go find a REAL problem to solve than something that you don't like the
> esthetics of.

This is a REAL problem. "Your theorem is ugly, so it must be incorrect."
(Some famous mathematician)
>> > I frankly just don't see what "problem" it is you are trying to solve.
>> I want  libbfd (and  libiberty) to  be installed as  part of  the OS.
>> Preferably -- in  both, static and dynamic  fashions, consistent with
>> the rest of the libraries.
> That is  NOT a  problem. That  is just some  mis-founded goal  with no
> basis of purpose.

Well,  than  nothing is  a  problem.  Which  problem is  FreeBSD's  very
existence trying to  solve, huh? Why don't  we all go and  "get a life",
instead of spending hours in front of the computers? Please...

>> Because FreeBSD's base source already  includes the libbfd source and
>> builds the  library during build.  It just  does not install  it, for
>> some reason. If  all targets are enabled,  this cross-toolchain ports
>> would  not even  need  their  own versions  of  this libraries,  most
>> likely...

> FEH!! You are going  to patch the nightmare (yes I  will use that term
> to describe  this) autoconf and autoMake  bits that come with  the GNU
> tools? Good luck! In general with GNU tools, JUST LEAVE THINGS THE WAY

Yes, I very well  might. Or, may be, I'll introduce  Makefiles of my own
-- Something already done for the C compiler and all the other GNU tools
in the base, BTW.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>