This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libstdc++ libtool lossage
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 14:47:27 -0800
- Subject: Re: libstdc++ libtool lossage
I would strongly prefer that we not change the semantics of -shared
or -shared-libgcc for any of the compiler drivers. We hashed this
through very carefully before GCC 3.0 and I think the decisions were
gcc and g++ handled "-shared" differently because it was thought that
C users would benefit from not having to deal with the shared libgcc,
where as C++ users simply have to deal with it; otherwise, their
programs will not, in general, work.
Alexandre, would you please back up and tell me (who is having a hard
time sorting through tens of email messages about this) the following
1. Why are we doing anything? What is the problem that we started
trying to solve last week? What goes wrong?
2. How have we tried to solve it thus far? What changes have we
made, why have we made them, and what to they do?
I don't have any kind of special authority here (this isn't really a
release issue), but I think I can probably help out if you can spell
these things out.
Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com