Re: bogus handing of Linux shared libraries

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May 28, 2001, Philip Blundell <address@hidden> wrote:

>> Except that it still changes the default behavior for unmatched
>> platforms, but it shouldn't.

> Why not?  Assuming that every future platform is going to be buggy
> seems to be a bit of a gloomy view of the world.

Call me conservative.  It's easy enough to add new platforms to the
list of known-to-work.

> Wouldn't it be better to just flag the ones that you know will have
> problems?

Perhaps.

>> And it doesn't apply cleanly; the current sources have hppa* in the list 
>> of platforms that support pass_all.

> Strange, I'm looking at what I thought was the latest in CVS.

Hmm...  Indeed.  Sorry about the confusion.  It seems that Gary missed
some of the latest patches in his merge from the multi-language
branch.  This change was checked in in both 1.4 and ML branches on
2001-05-16.  Gary?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me