This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?


On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:05:45PM +0000, Graham Murray wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> 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? 

You should only use --with-slibdir=/lib when you build a system
compiler. But I don't know -if -with-slibdir=/lib works when you
do "make install" since you are installing a system shared library
which may be used by every single binrary on your system. At any
moment, libgcc_s.so.1 has to be available. I am not sure if gcc is
prepared to deal with that. If not, I would suggest we follow the
way we install libc.so in glibc. That is we do

# install libgcc_s.so.1 /lib/libgcc_s-$version-$release_date.so
# ln -sf libgcc_s-$version-$release_date.so /lib/libgcc_s.so.1

We only need to do

# ln -sf ../../lib/libgcc_s.so.1 /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so

one time when you first install the system shared libgcc.


H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]