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

[Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>]

On 17 Feb 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Well, there is a very noticable difference between 2.95 and 3.0:
> Yep.  The difference is that GCC 3.0 builds shared libraries by
> default.  GCC 2.95 didn't.
> [...]
> OTOH, it might be reasonable to have shared libraries enabled by
> default.  I suppose most installations of GCC have a shared libstdc++
> these days, so the default would just follow common practice.  But I
> may be wrong in this assumption.

I don't have a strong opinion on that, either. I was mainly objecting
Joe's statement ``For C++, it has always been this way, and this should
not be surprising''.

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>   nunki[43]:~% gcc2.95 x.cc ; a.out
>>
>>   nunki[44]:~% gccvs x.cc ; a.out ld.so.1: a.out: fatal:
>> libstdc++.so.3: open failed: No such file or directory
> This difference is visible only because:
>
>   - You didn't install with --prefix=/usr; for systems that come
>     with GCC we can expect that they will do this.
>
>   - You didn't build 2.95.2 with --enable-shared.

Most people installing GCC from source will do both, I guess?

> However, in C++, I hink you get shared libgcc only when
> --enable-shared, so your world has not changed at all.  (C++ programs
> are now linked against two shared libraries instead of one.)

That's not what I've been experiencing, if you look at the two
command-lines quoted above. Both copies of GCC (2.95 and 3.0) have
been configured with "./configure --prefix=..." and nothing lese.

This does *not* mean the new behavior is bad, just that we should add
a very big note at a prominent place of the release notes.

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/