This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GDB <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:57:51 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity
- References: <AANLkTikYSxV51_452Wuqox6mQ3_QwNjzNkBgV=NzKk4f__16997.3676828251$1288473196$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com> <y0mhbg3icpj.fsf@fche.csb> <mcr1v762oh6.fsf@google.com>
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
>
>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> [...] ?By default, the in-tree zlib is used. ?If you configure
>>> binutis using --with-system-zlib, system zlib will be used. ?[...]
>>
>> Can you summarize what modern platforms lack a system zlib, and what
>> justifies using the proposed in-tree copy by default?
>
> This is a good point. ?We need zlib in the gcc repository because we
> build it for the target, but this issue does not arise in the src
> repository. ?So this becomes a question for the binutils maintainers: do
> the binutils want to be self-contained, or do they want to follow the
> path of gcc and require additional libraries to be installed before a
> build can succeed?
zlib is in similar situation as intl. We include intl in binutils src and
it can be disabled at configure time. For host zlib, should we check if
it is available and fail back to in-tree zlib if there is no suitable host
zlib?
--
H.J.