This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at wins dot uva dot nl>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 18:00:28 -0700
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com
- References: <200107020016.f620GYu29865@delius.kettenis.local>
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:34AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> There really is nothing magic about libgcc, as opposed to libX, or
> libgtk, or whatever. It's just a library.
>
> By default every shared library is linked against the shared libgcc.
> In that sense it is just as magical as libc
Exactly. But I doubt how many gcc developers really know/care about
all those magics in glibc.
>
> As a Hurd developer, I tend to think that the FSF GCC team should be
> in the role as the system vendor for GNU/Hurd ;-). And as someone who
> doesn't use a Linux distribution, I would appreciate it when
>
> ./configure --prefix=/usr
> make bootstrap
> make install
>
> would replace my current GCC with a new one without too much hassle.
> But I think it already does, despite what HJ says.
It works if your /usr partition is the same as /lib or you don't use
any dynamic binaries before /usr is available. FYI,
# make install
will override the existing /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1. I haven't checked
if it works or not when /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 is used by libc.so.
H.J.