This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: whither specs?
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr>
- Cc: Jason R Thorpe <thorpej at wasabisystems dot com>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>,Mumit Khan <khan at nanotech dot wisc dot edu>,Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:38:52 -0800
- Subject: Re: whither specs?
- References: <20021123152847.A444@lucon.org> <200211251508.gAPF8EdF032335@mururoa.inria.fr>
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:08:14PM +0100, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
> That being said, rth was OK for looking at a patch adding some -R
> like functionnality (just for gcc's own libraries) provided this was
> selected at configure time. I have it working for linux and solaris:
> it basically works by generating the proper -Wlrpath directives
> internally while processing the gcc specs for libraries. I got
> some comments at first versions of the patch... Then, at some point,
> I posted a revised (partial) patch for cleaning up lib_spec handling
> within gcc.c (most of the non-configury work was in that patch) and
> got no answer. I should have probably ping'ed about that patch....
>
I am not totally against passing -R to ld. But it is only marginally
useful, if at all, for Linux. In addition to problems I have pointed
out already, it may not work at all when you move the binary compiled
by gcc to a different machine since gcc libraries may be installed a
different directory. -R only makes senses when the gcc installation
directory will always be the same for all machines over time.
H.J.