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

[Bo Thorsen <bo at sonofthor dot dk>]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Geert Bosch wrote:
> > This restriction is unfortunate though, since it never was the case that
> > the gcc library had such state, so it was perfectly fine to have multiple
> > copies.  I really think we should have moved the exception stuff into a
> > separate library.
>
> Is it too late to revisit just this decision, and at leat try to "factor
> out" the problem a bit? libgcc is needed by a _lot_ of programs,
> especially on some architectures. While exception handling is not
> necessarily an issue for many people.
>
> That way, even if no good solution that makes everybody happy is found, at
> least we confine the problem case a bit..

I've seen this statement a couple of times in this thread now, and --
correct me if I'm wrong here -- it seems to be saying that the problem
isn't as bad, if it is only a C++ issue.

I completely disagree. By now, C++ has made it's way heavily into the
commercial world and is making good progress in free software as well.
IHMO it would be a disaster if GCC were about to stop this because of bad
library designs.

It looks like GCC will have to decide if it's a C compiler with support
for other languages or a compiler collection supporting C, C++ and others.

A little thought for this discussion: Will people think of me as a nutcase
if I wanted to write /sbin programs using gcj, gnat or some of the other
even less supported languages than C++?

Bo.

-- 

     Bo Thorsen                 |   Lahnsgade 31, st.
     Free software developer    |   5000 Odense C
     SuSE Labs                  |   Denmark