This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: rfc: limited shared libgcc widgetry
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: rfc: limited shared libgcc widgetry
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: 27 Sep 2000 05:35:56 -0300
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <20000926005446.A29052@cygnus.com>
On Sep 26, 2000, Richard Henderson <rth@cygnus.com> wrote:
> * libtool is not used because it does not (as far as I can tell)
> handle symbol version scripts, which we want for glibc
> compatibility.
You can pass whatever scripts you want to the linker using
-Wl,scriptname. It just isn't portable.
> Plus, I couldn't make libtool do what I want with a single tree
> cross compile; perhaps someone else could, but it seems awfully
> invasive.
What exactly did you want that it couldn't do?
My plan was to create a separate configure tree, that would create a
libtool script and the Makefile that is currently generated by
mklibgcc, but compiling all libgcc sources using libtool.
> IIRC, not all systems use different extensions for shared
> and static libraries.
That's right. This is the case for at least AIX.
> * Need to come up with a better scheme for describing symbol
> exports.
It would be nice to have something like this in libtool. Currently,
all it takes is a regular expression (IIRC) specifying the symbols
that should be exported. But, on some systems, it affects symbol
exporting for the purposes of linking; on others, it affects the
symbol list available for dlopen; on others, it affects both, and on
other systems it affects neither. This is one of those things that
just can't be done portably :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me