This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

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

To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
Subject: Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:24:51 -0800
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, lucier at math dot purdue dot edu,pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at, jbuck at synopsys dot COM, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <20010218121223S.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <200102182118.f1ILIa028646@polya.math.purdue.edu> <20010218183703F.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <hoy9v2ualu.fsf@gee.suse.de>

On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 01:21:33PM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> 
> > You can use -rpath if you want.  Or you can build --enable-static.  Or
> > you can use -static-libgcc.  Or you can use -static.
> 
> AFAIK --enable-static builds all libs as static versions.  I'd like to
> build only libgcc as static but have a shared libstdc++.  Is this
> supported with the current configure frame-work?  Or should we change
> gcc/configure to except --enable-static-libgcc?
> 

Personally I believe the shared libgcc is a good thing if it is done
right. I believe we, Linux/glibc, can do it right. Following the
glibc shared library installation model is a good start.

-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@valinux.com)

References:
- Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
  - From: Brad Lucier
- Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
  - From: Andreas Jaeger

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]