This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>,Ulrich Drepper <drepper at cygnus dot com>,Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: Problematic linking between glibc and shared libgcc
- From: Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk at suse dot de>
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:05:00 +0100
- Organization: SuSE GmbH, Nuernberg, Germany
- References: <01021523111501.01075@enzo.bigblue.local> <m3bss38r2r.fsf@otr.mynet.cygnus.com> <20010216234821.D19905@redhat.com>
On Fri, Feb 16, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:27:40PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > It's not silly. There are very good reasons for such a setup and it's
> > entirely gcc fault. I've pointed this out over and over again in the
> > last years, trying to fight this shared libgcc. But of course nobody
> > listens.
>
> Oh give me a break. You are hardly a lone voice crying in the
> wilderness. We heard you. We listened. We did not agree that
> this is sufficient reason not to build a shared libgcc.
I think the only people wishing a shared libgcc are the gcc developer
itself and nobody else. I don't know any person outside the gcc project
who likes this, specially people working on large projects and
distributions hate it.
>
> > The best solution is to override the decision and not compile libgcc
> > as a DSO.
>
> You can do this on your own system of course: --disable-shared.
> Don't expect that to ever be the default though. I for one do
> not think this is the best solution.
As far as I can see it is the only real solution :-(
Thorsten
--
Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de
SuSE GmbH Schanzaeckerstr. 10 90443 Nuernberg
Linux is like a Vorlon. It is incredibly powerful, gives terse,
cryptic answers and has a lot of things going on in the background.