This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:06:20 -0700
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com dot com
- References: <20010630155951.B17670@lucon.org> <20010630172344.B10718@stanford.edu> <20010630222620.B22998@lucon.org>
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 10:26:20PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> Do you seriously believe
>
> # ./configure
> # make
> # su
> # make install
>
> should override a system DSO which may be used by every single binary
> on the system? That is the central issue for any system which gcc
> is used as a system compiler.
>
> If your answer is
>
> 1. Don't know. I have nothing to say.
> 2. Yes. It is too bad. I have nothing to say either.
> 3. No, it shouldn't override a system DSO. Then we can start to talk.
My answer is 3, in that I disbelieve that "make install" could
ever be made robust enough for that to work.
However, I'll also state the Red Hat srpm (and Debian whatsit, etc)
for gcc should build a libgcc rpm that _does_ install libgcc_s.so
in /lib.
r~