This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:20:02AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >>>>> "Eric" == Eric W Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> writes:
>
> Eric> O.k. What happens when you take that GCC and build a binary
> Eric> for use during the unix bootstrap. init, /bin/sh, or
> Eric> something called from your initial scripts.
>
> It works fine. Because you didn't link against any shared libraries,
> and because you didn't specify -shared-libgcc, it gets the static
> version of libgcc linked in.
>
> There should be no difference for such programs.
Don't link against any shared libraries? On at least Linux systems,
binaries in /bin and /sbin are not statically linked. -lc is implied.
My concern is whether libc will be linked against libgcc.so, or whether
applications using it will get their own copy.
If it isn't, and the application gets a copy, consider libncurses or
such, which will be linked against libgcc in the scenario you describe.
Boom - copy in application, statically, copy in libncurses,
dynamically. We limit it to two copies, but that's not a win - we need
one, right?
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan@debian.org | | dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/