RE: [PATCH libgloss]Using spec files to support two version of newlib library in one tool-chain release

["Bin Cheng" <bin dot cheng at arm dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: newlib-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:newlib-
> owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Steve Ellcey
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:04 AM
> To: Craig Howland
> Cc: newlib@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH libgloss]Using spec files to support two version of
newlib
> library in one tool-chain release
> 
> 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.
> 
Hi,
Thank both of you for the suggestion.  I agree _s isn't appropriate here,
and searched and replaced it with _n in the attached patch.  If anyone
thinks _n isn't clear enough I suggest we just use _nano here, since the
word is used elsewhere in both file name and configuration option name.

Is it OK for you guys?

Thanks,
bin

Attachment: nano-spec-20140813.txt
Description: Text document