This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508

--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2012-10-04 12:46:34 UTC ---
> --- Comment #9 from gellert at dkrz dot de 2012-09-25 17:00:22 UTC ---
[...]
>> I agree that gcc/g++/... not adding needed RPATHs to its runtime libraries is
>> a major nuissance for every site with more than a single system and a central
>> installation of gcc and it has bothered me for a long time.
>> 
>> I'm (slowly) working towards a generic approach to solve this problem, maybe
>> I'll have something ready for gcc 4.7.0.
>
> well, anything done already? If not, what kind of solution do you have in mind?

Unfortunately not since I had to massively cut down my gcc work in
recent months.

The work consists of 3 parts, I think:

* A configure option to selectively enable/disable this since
  unconditional enabling has found massive opposition in the past.

* Changing the build procedure so shared runtime libraries are
  optionally build with RPATHs pointing at the installed locations of
  their dependencies.

* Changing the drivers to add RPATHs for the shared runtime libraries
  linked.

No idea when I'll get around to this, unfortunately.

    Rainer


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]