This is the mail archive of the 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: printing exceptions?

On Mar 15, 2002, Richard Henderson <> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 07:43:43PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Another possibility that occurred to me, that would further alleviate
>> the problem of duplicate shared libraries, would be to get GCC to no
>> longer issue the `-lgcc_s -lc -lgcc_s' sequence, but instead, to use
>> just `-lgcc_s -lc'.

> Seems ok.

Yay!  I'll try to implement this in the next few days.

>> We'd might still have to add duplicates for -lgcc and -lgcc_eh...

> Not for gcc_eh.  The point of the duplicate is to cater to a libc
> that uses e.g. __divdi3.

More specifically, and static libc that uses __divdi3, since a shared
one would have its own __divdi3, no?

However, I kind of fail to see the point of having -lgcc before -lc.
I understand the idea is to resolve symbols of the program with the
implementations in libgcc, but what if the program doesn't reference a
symbol, but libc does?  Then, we won't get the definition from libgcc,
but rather from libc itself.  Could this ever be a problem?  If not,
why don't we just drop the -lgcc from before -lc and stick with the
one after -lc only?

Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{,}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{,}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer

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