Re: bogus handing of Linux shared libraries

[Gary V . Vaughan]

On Tuesday 29 May 2001  3:23 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 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?

I believe everything is in sync now.  I wasn't planning on figuring out which 
bits of the ChangeLog need merging -- or at least I unvolunteer myself for 
this job if it does need doing ;-)

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
  ())_.  Gary V. Vaughan     gary@(oranda.demon.co.uk|gnu.org)
  ( '/   Research Scientist  http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk        ,_())____
  / )=   GNU Hacker          http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool   \'      `&
`(_~)_   Tech' Author        http://sources.redhat.com/autobook    =`---d__/