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: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+ at andrew dot cmu dot edu>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 08:16:38 +0100 (BST)
- cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > ./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.
>
> Does it behave correctly in overwriting libgcc? My reading of
> install-sh suggests that it should be fine.
My reading of install-sh says it doesn't work correctly here (it removes
the old file, then tries to move in the new file - which would fail if mv
were dynamically linked against libgcc). I made some attempts to
reproduce this in a chroot some time ago but they failed to show the
problem because (a) the shared libc didn't get linked against the shared
libgcc and (b) through fragile means, the C program "install" was used
instead of install-sh
<URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-03/msg01327.html>.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk