This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@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]

[Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508

gellert at dkrz dot de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gellert at dkrz dot de

--- Comment #9 from gellert at dkrz dot de 2012-09-25 17:00:22 UTC ---
Hi there,

it's always a pleasure to comment on an old thread. :-)

> I think handling this via specs is the wrong (read: far too complicated)
> approach.

well, maybe, but at least it's better to have something
that works than having nothing.

> I agree that gcc/g++/... not adding needed RPATHs to its runtime libraries is
> a major nuissance for every site with more than a single system and a central
> installation of gcc and it has bothered me for a long time.
> 
> I'm (slowly) working towards a generic approach to solve this problem, maybe
> I'll have something ready for gcc 4.7.0.

well, anything done already? If not, what kind of solution do you have in mind?

Cheers, Olaf


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