Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, I vote we take it out, which would eliminate these warnings
>> instead of just shorten them.  On a platform where tsorting a
>> non-shared library's contents is actually essential, libpq.a would be
>> useless anyway

> I don't think that the primary purpose of tsort/lorder is to produce a 
> functioning library.  The idea is to reduce the link time when the 
> library is later used by reducing the number of passes that the link 
> editor has to make over the input libraries.

That is a revisionist view of history.  The GNU coreutils people,
for instance, remember it the same way I do:

(In practice, I'm not sure anyone still uses libpq.a at all, rather
than ...)

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to