On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:53:05 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@...> wrote:
> > No no no. The benefits described would be obtained by fixing
> > libtool. What you get from as-needed is a half-arsed
> > sometimes-working subset of those benefits. as-needed is not the
> > fix for the libtool problems.
> Once again, you do not support your argument with anything but your
> own word. Don't make me choke on the salt please :)
Uhm. You're suggesting that the underlying issue is not a libtool
problem? Or you're suggesting that as-needed fixes the libtool bug?
Which basic fact that everyone discussing this should already know are
> Once again, rhetoric and insults without logic or reason. We all know
> you know that you need facts to convince people, but you're not
> providing any facts. One can only conclude that your purpose is not to
> convince. I honestly am baffled what purpose you have in mind.
I expect people to do their homework and understand what we're
discussing. Do you expect me to start every post by explain what a
> > And unfortunately, it looks like those people are the ones that're
> > going to be making the decisions.
> Excellent, then you are free to point and laugh when we trip and fall.
> In the meantime, if you truly think everyone is making the wrong
> decision, talk with some facts and/or statistics.
Fact: the underlying issue is a libtool bug.
Fact: as-needed does not fix this bug. It attempts to work around it.
Fact: as-needed breaks standard-compliant code.
Fact: fixing the libtool bug would give all the benefits purportedly
given by using as-needed, without the drawbacks.
It's quite simple, and if there're any of the above that you didn't
already know then why are you wasting everyone else's time discussing
things in this thread without doing some basic research first?