This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: [PATCH] Don't link ecj1 against libgcj.so.* (PR libgcj/38396)
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Java Patch List <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:57:51 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't link ecj1 against libgcj.so.* (PR libgcj/38396)
- References: <20081218093733.GW17496@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <494A248A.2060203@redhat.com> <494A2C7E.9070400@gnu.org> <494A2DDA.6020407@redhat.com> <494A404D.2050901@gnu.org> <494A423D.2090702@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:29:49PM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Which of those OSes support libgcj_bc.so? None, I think.
> > In other words, something like this, if it works at all, should fix the PR:
>
> I don't think this bug has anything to do with ENABLE_SHARED. Not that
That's true.
> I have any objection to the change to the specs, which looks correct,
> but surely that's another issue.
But when we are already touching this...
It is true that for !ENABLE_SHARED USE_LIBGCJ_BC doesn't make any sense.
Perhaps we should disable USE_LIBGCJ_BC if !ENABLE_SHARED during configury.
Still, I guess we should avoid -lgcj_bc for -static, so perhaps
if "$enable_shared" != yes; then
use_libgcj_bc=no
fi
if test "$use_libgcj_bc" = yes; then
LIBGCJ_SPEC="%{s-bc-abi:%{static:-lgcj;:-lgcj_bc};:-lgcj}"
fi
in configure.ac. I'm not convinced we want to get rid of libgcj.la
in ecjx_LDADD for !USE_LIBGCJ_BC, that includes all kinds of weird targets
which perhaps want rpath or something similar sticked into the executable.
Jakub