This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFA] Remove -V
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 06:11:25PM -0400, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
> On Monday, May 13 2002, "Geoff Keating" wrote to "lennox@cs.columbia.edu, aoliva@redhat.com, neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" saying:
>
> > Shared libraries have their own version numbers, so they can stay
> > where they are. (For instance, the latest libgcc_s.so should work
> > with earlier GCC versions.)
>
> Shared library versioning works for run-time dynamic linking, but what about
> actual link-time linking? That is to say, even if
> $(prefix)/lib/libstdc++.so.3.0.4 exists, ld will interpret -lstdc++ to mean
> "link with $(prefix)/lib/libstdc++.so", even if that's actually a symlink to
> $(prefix)/lib/libstdc++.so.3.1.0.
Well, yeah. That's sort of the point, isn't it?
> C++ binary compatibility is, I think, the biggest reason why one would need
> multiple versions of GCC installed, currently; and from what I gather from
> the comments on this list, libstdc++ binary compatibility isn't likely to
> stabilize for a while yet.
Actually, most people will only need one copy of GCC installed: the latest.
For backwards compatability, they only need older shared libraries, not
entire installations.
Phil
--
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams