This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: -shared-libgcc vs. -static -static-libgcc
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 28 Feb 2002 05:41:40 -0300
- Subject: Re: -shared-libgcc vs. -static -static-libgcc
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.1020227171642.15292A-100000@taarna.cygnus.com><orr8n6b5zu.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><3C7DE415.5090901@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>
On Feb 28, 2002, Bryce McKinlay <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Ok, here's what I've come up with. Tested on athlon-pc-linux-gnu,
>> both with and without a recent ld. libstdc++-v3 and libjava built
>> correctly (i.e., were linked with libgcc_s), and libjava binaries no
>> longer depend directly on libgcc_s, as intended.
> Is there a correctness issue here or is it just a matter of style &
> efficiency to not depend directly on it?
The latter, I suppose. But now that I think more of it, I'm not
really sure it's appropriate to not have them directly linked with the
shared libgcc, since they are linked with libgcj that is linked with
libgcc_s. Hmm...
--
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 Professional serial bug killer