Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

[Raja R Harinath <harinath at cs dot umn dot edu>]

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> On 19 Feb 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > A shared libgcc looks necessary to resolve problems of it's being
> > linked in multiple times by a program.  But for a shared libgcc to
> > work reliably it must be in /lib.   So we need gcc's make install to
> > put it there with an appropriate version number.
> 
> No.  Here, for example, we install GCC from an account different than
> root.
> 
> And even if we would install as root, `make install` should *not* do
> anything about /lib which is on a local disk, unlike the software which
> is installed on a file server for use by the whole network.
> 
> Not all the world is GNU/Linux. And not all the world is a stand-alone
> machine.

But, GCC can make special exceptions for GNU/Linux installations
configured, say, with '--prefix=/usr' (I think that's the approach
GLibc takes).  It's not too much overhead to put in a rule like:

      if prefix is /usr 
         and GNU/Linux system 
         and --enable-system-compiler is specified
      then install libgcc.so into /lib

This depends on the charter of GCC.  If it is to provide a system
compiler for a GNU system, while also being available to be used as a
third-party compiler in other systems, it should be open to such a
change.  If the charter is to provide a generic third-party compiler,
period, then, of course not.

>From what I understand of the GCC mission statement, the charter is to
provide a system compiler for a GNU system.

- Hari
-- 
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ harinath@cs.umn.edu
"When all else fails, read the instructions."      -- Cahn's Axiom
"Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing."   -- Roy L Ash