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: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "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 16:50:25 -0800
- Subject: Re: libstdc++ libtool lossage
--On Saturday, February 23, 2002 08:20:30 PM -0300 Alexandre Oliva
Thanks for your answer. I'm still trying to get my head around all
of it, but, if you would be so kind, I have a few more preliminary
>> gcc and g++ handled "-shared" differently because it was thought that
>> C users would benefit from not having to deal with the shared libgcc,
> No, they didn't, but they do now, on GNU/Linux, if you have a recent
> enough version of GNU ld.
Are you saying that, until recently, both "gcc -shared" and
"g++ -shared" linked the shared library with both the shared libgcc and
the static one? (That sound plausible, just not what I remembered.)
(Parenthetically, that suggests that my memory was probably of the
executable creation behavior; when linking a final executable "gcc"
linked in the static libgcc but "g++" linked in the shared libgcc?
(And also the static one, or not?) Is this right?)
And you're saying that now some bit of binutils wizardy means that
on sufficiently modern GNU/Linux machines we could created C shared
libraries without linking with any libgcc at all? Or by linking with
just the static version; we no longer need the shared version?
Just trying to catch up,
Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com