This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
- From: Joerg Faschingbauer <jfasch at hyperwave dot com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:20:04 +0200
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20000425235511A.mitchell@codesourcery.com>
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
[...]
Mark> I look forward to your comments.
[...]
Well here are my $0.02.
You write,
<snip>
GCC Support Library
The libgcc library should probably be a shared library on many
systems. As GCC 3.0 will contain other ABI changes, now is as
good a time as any to make this change. It is as-of-yet unclear
on exactly which systems libgcc should be a shared library. That
decision will be made, and necessary implementation work will be
completed, before GCC 3.0 is released.
</snip>
Do you consider this the default? If yes, will --disable-shared (for
example) enable the default behavior of gcc 2.95 (i.e. both libgcc and
libstdc++ static)?
The reason why I am asking is that the --enable-shared of current
releases (making libstdc++ a shared library) is mostly useless for
serious development. Releasing my programs, I cannot expect libstdc++
- generated with the same compiler version that I use to build with -
be present at the customer's site. A shared libgcc, in the current
version, will suffer from exactly that problem.
I kind of understand that's what the new ABI is for. But isn't it a
bit hasty to say, "we have the ABI, and that's not supposed to change
for aeons". I mean, isn't a shared libgcc crying for problems, more
than the shared libstdc++ (simply because more people are using it,
naturally).
Thanks,
Joerg