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 ?!?
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 08:16:38AM +0100, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > > ./configure --prefix=/usr
> > > make bootstrap
> > > make install
> > >
> > > would replace my current GCC with a new one without too much hassle.
> > > But I think it already does, despite what HJ says.
> >
> > Does it behave correctly in overwriting libgcc? My reading of
> > install-sh suggests that it should be fine.
>
> My reading of install-sh says it doesn't work correctly here (it removes
> the old file, then tries to move in the new file - which would fail if mv
> were dynamically linked against libgcc). I made some attempts to
> reproduce this in a chroot some time ago but they failed to show the
> problem because (a) the shared libc didn't get linked against the shared
> libgcc and (b) through fragile means, the C program "install" was used
> instead of install-sh
> <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-03/msg01327.html>.
I take it back; you're quite right.
As a purely technical issue, should we correct this?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer