This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: Graham Murray <graham at gmurray dot org dot uk>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 16:05:45 +0000
- References: <20010630155951.B17670@lucon.org><20010630172344.B10718@stanford.edu> <20010630222620.B22998@lucon.org><firstname.lastname@example.org><20010701084451.A1699@lucon.org>
"H . J . Lu" <email@example.com> writes:
> If I told you putting libgcc_s.so in /usr/local/lib didn't work too
> well or might override the one in /lib when there is libgcc_s.so in
> /lib, would you believe me? It is the same thing as putting a shared
> libc in /usr/local/lib and expect the machine to work reliably as a
> complete system.
Would this be the reason why you would use the --with-slibdir=/lib
when configuring gcc?