Re: A completely different approach to EH runtime

[Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 05:22:41PM -0500, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
> Now, there are ways around this, probably involving -rpath, but I don't
> think any of them are particularly pretty.

Or LD_LIBRARY_PATH, or /etc/ld.so.conf, or whatever, yes.

> Am I misunderstanding something?  Would bumping the shared library version
> number of libgcc_s.so fix this without breaking other things?

I think it just causes other problems.  Version number bumping
should be reserved for known incompatible changes.

> I naturally *don't* want gcc 3.1's libgcc_s.so to be linked in for
> programs that *weren't* compiled with gcc 3.1 -- imagine if this
> isn't actually the released version of gcc 3.1, but rather development
> snapshot.

The goal is that we would have been able to maintain backward
compatibility between the old library and the new.  So having
the new library pulled in for programs compiled with gcc 3.0
ought to work.  Knowing that it doesn't is especially important
for a development snapshot, so that it can be fixed.  ;-)


r~