libiberty revisited

Greg Schafer gschafer at
Wed Mar 5 15:00:24 PST 2003

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:32:39PM -0500, James Smaby wrote:
> Has anyone tried building a shared libiberty, and linking everything
> against that?  I know the binutils binaries are pretty big, and this
> could be because they link it in static.  It would make a fun test,
> at least.  Maybe see if there's a noticable performance change
> (static is normally faster, but if gcc, as, and ld are all using
> the same library, there would be less to load I guess).

This strikes me as a bad idea. The libiberty included in each package is
tested and known to work with that package. Mixing and matching is a
potential cause of grief. We have enough dramas with the toolchain as it is
now. So me for one would prefer that we not frig with this potentially
fragile area.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list