Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> 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:
http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/textutils/coreutils_32.html
(In practice, I'm not sure anyone still uses libpq.a at all, rather
than libpq.so ...)
regards, tom lane
