[gccsdk] Shared library status update

alan buckley alan_baa at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 17 01:31:58 PST 2008

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:35:39 +0000 Adam wrote:
> In message , Adam wrote:
>> In message , Lee wrote:
>>> Peter Naulls wrote:
>>>> Perhaps we can also have some opinions on how shared libraries ought
>>>> to be distributed - wrt to packaging and !DSO-Libs.
>>> [snip !DSO-Libs]
>> Has there been any further discussion on the issues raised in the
>> "Shared Library Distribution" thread from a while ago? E.g. Martin
>> Wuerthner's contribution and Alan Buckley's thoughts? (And not
>> forgetting the important issue of a nice name as raised by Theo
>> Markettos ;) )
> [snip silence]
> Hmm, OK, well, let me summarise the main discussion from then, as I saw
> it. I am sure I will make some miss-quotes so apologies in advance, and
> corrections are welcome!
> The current (default) system is just that libraries get included in a
> skeleton DSO-Libs and it's down to the user to merge it with the
> "master" DSO-Libs.
> Martin argued that this is an imperfect system which is likely to result
> in user-error. In particular he pointed out that it leads to confusion
> about the difference between the "master" DSO-Libs and the "skeleton"
> DSO-Libs.
> As an alternative, he suggested that the "master" DSO-Libs should be an
> active object which would handle the merging, invoked by the !Run file
> of the distributed library.

I agree this is a good idea.

Is there another component as well, the Elf loader. Where does this fit?
It sound to me like it something that should be installed into system
> Alan suggested a scheme based around libPkg which would be a super-set
> of the scheme outlined by Martin.

I still think this is a good idea. However if others aren't so keen, can we
please make it is easy to distribute the libraries and maintain the Elf loader
through packages as well. e.g. Possibly allow a seperate packaged folder that
can be searched for libraries as well if it is installed.
> There was a small amount of discussion about names, with no-one
> objecting to !SharedLib. I suggest that be adopted.
Sound good to me.
> Thoughts?
I guess it's now down to the people who have done the hard work in
creating the Shared Library framework on how to proceed.

> If it's of any use, I'd be willing to volunteer to put together a scheme
> based on Martin's suggestions.

I'm also willing to help in getting this working.

Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463!

More information about the gcc mailing list