This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: -shared-libgcc vs. -static -static-libgcc
- From: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:02:29 +1300
- Subject: Re: -shared-libgcc vs. -static -static-libgcc
- References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.1020227171642.15292A-100000@taarna.cygnus.com> <orr8n6b5zu.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>Ok, here's what I've come up with. Tested on athlon-pc-linux-gnu,
>both with and without a recent ld. libstdc++-v3 and libjava built
>correctly (i.e., were linked with libgcc_s), and libjava binaries no
>longer depend directly on libgcc_s, as intended.
>
Is there a correctness issue here or is it just a matter of style &
efficiency to not depend directly on it? I ask because gcj links its
binaries directly against libgcc_s (and a bunch of other java libraries).
Anyway, thanks for cleaning this stuff up a bit.
regards
Bryce.