Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

>>>>> "H" == H J Lu <hjl@valinux.com> writes:

    H> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00605.html

Sure. 

The point is that there's no reason to take this up with the GCC
development team.

GNU/Linux is just one operating system.  From the FSF's perspective,
it's the most important.  But, the BSDs are important too.  And even
the proprietary systems are important.  So, it's our job to build a
cross-platform cross-target compiler.  It's up to GNU/Linux vendors to
make whatever packaging modifications are appropriate.  

So, if you think there's a better set of tradeoffs to be made for
(say) Debian GNU/Linux than what's in the default tree, then you
should definitely talk to the Debian folks about it.  But our job is
to provide a solution that works in as many places as possible, and
doesn't make too many platform specific assumptions, and does work for
people who want to install a new compiler on their existing GNU/Linux
system without rebuilding libc, etc.

That's why we made the tradeoffs we did.  Thus far, I think they've
been shown to be good tradeoffs.  In particular, C++
exception-handling now works well even across shared libraries.  

Note, too, that we moved the C++-specific bits of libgcc into
libstdc++ to reduce both the size of the image required by C programs.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com