This is the mail archive of the
newlib@sourceware.org
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: [PATCH libgloss]Using spec files to support two version of newlib library in one tool-chain release
- From: Steve Ellcey <sellcey at mips dot com>
- To: Craig Howland <howland at LGSInnovations dot com>
- Cc: <newlib at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:03:44 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH libgloss]Using spec files to support two version of newlib library in one tool-chain release
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <001e01cfb600$ce404f10$6ac0ed30$ at arm dot com> <53EA3269 dot 1080304 at LGSInnovations dot com>
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 11:27 -0400, Craig Howland wrote:
> One thought on word choice for consideration: the new library files are named
> with an "_s" suffix, yet the option and file names use "nano", which has no
> letters in common with the _s. Presumably the "s" comes from small or size.
> Might it be better to use "small" or "size" instead of "nano"? Or something
> else that more readily associates? (Not a big thing, but would become more
> important were another option to be added later.)
>
> Craig
I would rather use the _n prefix to match nano rather then _s to match
small (or size) because _s means 'shared' to me. The GCC build uses
foo.o for non-pic objects and foo_s.o for pic objects when building some
of its libraries like libgcc. I think using _n would result in less
confusion.
Steve Ellcey
sellcey@mips.com