This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?
- From: "gellert at dkrz dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:00:22 +0000
- Subject: [Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-45508-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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