This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: 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>, "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 07:31:26 -0700
Subject: Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils

--On Monday, August 05, 2002 07:25:13 AM -0700 Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> wrote:

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 08:45:20AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

As long as there is a configure option to build anyway.  That's an
awful lot of released systems you're talking about not building on!

So?  If you're upgrading gcc, you can upgrade binutils too.

Agreed.  On a system which supports the configury options discussed, they
should be used.

__cxa_atexit is something of a special case.  It's not really necessary
for ABI compliance; programs that mix the two methods will work, modulo
the order of calls to destructors for objects with static storage duration,
and that ordering issue was not really considered a problem for years.

--
Mark Mitchell                mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC            http://www.codesourcery.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

References:
- Re: libgcc_s, Linux, and PT_GNU_EH_FRAME, and binutils
  - From: Richard Henderson

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