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

[Joern Rennecke <amylaar at redhat dot com>]

> 
> Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> writes:
> 
> > Isn't it possible to split libgcc into one, small, static, version dependent
> > library and one shared that you'll try to keep the more version compatible as
> > possible ?
> 
> No.  It is possible to do the reverse, but the bit that has to be
> shared is the bit that will change most often.

Well, I would eally like to get rid of all the gross multi-precision
arithmentic (e.g. cmpdi2) in the shared library.
This stuff was only good as a stop-gap solution for a new target, or
where you just don't care how inefficient this stuf might be, and is
kept around as ballast on every other target.

This is really part of the interface definition issue:
If you had a proper list of the functions you want in the shared
libgcc, you could use that to write a makefile rule to put just
these into libgcc_s.