This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:45:49AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Could we somehow get away with not linking shared libraries to the
> shared libgcc unless they used C++, and requiring dynamic libgcc in
> applications which wished to have correct exception handling and use
> C++ shared libraries?
Yes, we could. The problem is identifying these situations automatically.
It wouldn't be too bad if we could just presume ELF, but coming up with a
solution that works everywhere has eluded me.
Do recall that you can *always* use --static-libgcc to override the default.
> Also, my understanding is that this entire issue arises from portions
> of libgcc for which there must only be one copy. But that doesn't
> include all of libgcc, does it? Could we somehow divide those two -
> use a static libgcc for things which can be private?
*shrug* We could, but what would be the point? You don't have
to actually use any symbol from a shared library to generate a
dependance on it. The dependance it added by its mere presence
on the link line.
r~