Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

[Michael Matz <matzmich at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>]

Hi,

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Brad Lucier wrote:
>
> Right now on my alpha I have installed 2.95.1, 2.95.2, the current
> gcc-3_0-branch, and a profiled gcc-3_0-branch (and I can give what I
> consider to be a reasonable reason to use each of them in different
> circumstances).  If they were all built with shared libraries that they
> didn't know the location of, I'd have to change my LD_LIBRARY_PATH or
> reconfigure my applications or change my makefiles by hand each time I
> wanted to try to compile something with a different version of gcc?

(You can probably use libgcc_s from normal gcc also with the profiled
version.  Of course this all falls apart, if you really want the -pg
version of libgcc_s, or a completely other gcc version)

> This doesn't make sense to me.

Same here.  I also would think about large centrally administered
installations (usually holding many versions of gcc in different
directories).  I think it's far less common to give a binary installation
of gcc to someone else (distros or bonus CDs don't count, their makers
should know what they do).  So for other users, gcc should just work,
which means at least a configure option to switch on hardcoding
<path-to-libgcc_s> in all executables created by that particular version
of g++ (in case a shared libgcc_s is configured) on platforms, where this
is possible.  Yes, that path needs to be available when running, there are
gotchas, but so what.


Ciao,
Michael.