This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at v dot loewis dot de>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 07:03:37 -0700
- Subject: Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
--On Monday, August 05, 2002 05:57:11 AM -0400 Richard Henderson
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:11:59AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
That's why I propose that in order to build g++ 3.2 interoperable with
everyone else glibc 2.2.5+, binutils 2.12.1+ and --enable-shared
--enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit is required.
We could even cook up a testsuite which wether g++/libgcc_s/libstdc++
follow those requiremenets.
I think it would be reasonable to actively fail the configure
on Linux if these requirements are not met. Otherwise it's
sure to be the case that someone won't read this even if we
were to document it properly.
Mark, what do you think?
I agree. I don't think we need to do this for GCC 3.2, but I do think
it would be good to do this at some point.
This is an instance of the "choices are bad" idea; if we remove the
option to screw up configuring stuff that is a good thing.
We could, instead of failing, just hardwire the switches on and warn.
Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com