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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+ at andrew dot cmu dot edu>]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 06:37:03PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >>>>> "Brad" == Brad Lucier <lucier@math.purdue.edu> writes:
> 
>     Brad> I don't want all the libraries I use linked statically.  I
>     Brad> just want the library that I never had to think about
>     Brad> before, and indeed, never noticed before, linked in
>     Brad> automatically (whether statically or not).
> 
> Then you should indeed build --enable-static.  If you had used any
> language other than C, and used --enable-shared, you would already
> have had this problem.  For example, with C++ shared libraries, you
> would have had this problem.  With Java shared libraries, you would
> have had this problem.

But there is something to be said for the bulk of code on a typical
system which is system-critical and written in neither C++ nor Java,
generally - for Linux, at least, and most of the other unixlike
operating systems I am familiar with.

> The good thing is that there are options to disable the behavior you
> don't like.  So, all we're arguing about is the default behavior.  I
> think we're just going to have to agree to disagree -- both sides
> can't win.

For Debian, at least, I'm going to have to recommend that we not build
a shared libgcc.  IIRC, there is an option to build other libraries
shared, and maintain a static libgcc - right?

Here's my concern: right now, there are a small number of files that a
minimal compiled C program (not statically linked) needs to run: a
dynamic linker, libc.so.6, and perhaps libdl/libm.  These are all built
from the glibc source, and all easily packaged together.  There is
one package which must be available, built from one source.

In the new scheme, even after we put libgcc in the "right" place (meaning
necessary - /lib), there will now be two.  The complexity is a great
deal higher, with libc tightly coupled to it.

This may be an already-hashed-out question, whose answer I just lost in
the confusion... for programs which are neither shared libraries
themselves nor written in C++/Java/etc, is there any correctness loss
in a static libgcc?  Is this feasible?

Dan

/--------------------------------\  /--------------------------------\
|       Daniel Jacobowitz        |__|        SCS Class of 2002       |
|   Debian GNU/Linux Developer    __    Carnegie Mellon University   |
|         dan@debian.org         |  |       dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu      |
\--------------------------------/  \--------------------------------/