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
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Subject: Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
- From: Geert Bosch <bosch at gnat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:47:02 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: dewar at gnat dot com, rth at redhat dot com, torvalds at transmeta dot com,aoliva at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
On 20 Feb 2001, Andreas Schwab wrote:
|Not even that. Only one copy of the code must be _active_ during
|runtime.
OK, if we're going to be real precise, you should say that only one copy
of the data should be active! :-)
Anyway, this is a serious departure from the original libgcc2, which
did not have state and therefore could be linked in statically without
problems. I agree with Linus that the best solution is to break out
the EH part and put it in a separate library. Almost all of the problems
foreseen with dynamic libgcc are for programs that do not require EH.
-Geert
BTW, what is the overhead on Linux for calling routines in dynamic
libraries as opposed to code statically linked in? Has anybody done