Re: [RFC] Unconditionally include shared library code

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>]

On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:01:41 -0400
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:

> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 11:46:08PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >    Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 10:56:27 -0400
> >    From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > 
> >    On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 04:51:25PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >    > Hmm, that'd work.  We'll have to face the inconsistent interface issue
> >    > eventually, but it's a seperate issue indeed.  Any objection if I
> >    > introduce a config/tm-solib.h and use that?  Its purpose is a bit more
> >    > clear, and the risk of abuse is smaller.  The mechanical update is not
> >    > without risk, but I'm willing to take it.  Deal?
> > 
> >    I like it.  It is indeed a tm file and shouldn't be used any other way.
> > 
> > I reworked the patch to avoid shlib.[ch].  Looking at the changes I
> > think the risk of changing solib.h into tm-solib.h under config/ is
> > riskier than leaving config/ alone and simply removing the #defines
> > from solib.h.  I'm moving towards checking in the attached patch at
> > the end of the coming week.
> 
> I like this even more!  Kevin?

It's okay with me.

Kevin