This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: rfc: limited shared libgcc widgetry
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 04:53:14PM +0100, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> How does this work when the soname of libc changes, users have binaries
> linked against the old shared libc ...
The same horrible way that any libc upgrade works. You're
trying to make the pain too complicated.
> If libgcc will include symbols that require the C++ compiler to be built,
> then shared libgcc should probably be disabled if --enable-languages is
> used to disable the C++ compiler; I don't think the symbols contained in
> a shared libgcc should depend on the languages chosen as that would be a
> recipe for incompatibilities.
Reasonable. The main reason for needing a shared libgcc in the
first place is exception handling.
> If a system has a shared libgcc as a system library, and a user builds
> their own more recent GCC and installs it in a private directory, will
> programs built with that GCC use the symbols from its libgcc rather than
> the older system shared libgcc (a) if the private copy of GCC is
> configured with --disable-shared;
I suppose so, since the gcc driver would have to know that there
was no shared libgcc to link against, so it wouldn't have tried.
> (b) if it is configured with --enable-shared?
That's going to depend on the user's LD_LIBRARY_PATH. I don't
like the notion of gcc automatically adding an rpath; that's just
a recipe for pain.