This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 08:44:51 -0700
- Cc: Zack Weinberg <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com dot com
- References: <20010630155951.B17670@lucon.org> <20010630172344.B10718@stanford.edu> <20010630222620.B22998@lucon.org> <orzoaoeof7.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:04:12AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2001, "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote:
>
> > Do you seriously believe
>
> > # ./configure
> > # make
> > # su
> > # make install
>
> > should override a system DSO which may be used by every single binary
> > on the system?
>
> I don't think it should. In fact, I don't think it does right now.
> At least, I wouldn't expect to find any system DSO in /usr/local/lib,
> which is where I believe libgcc_s.so would be installed with the
> commands above.
>
If I told you putting libgcc_s.so in /usr/local/lib didn't work too
well or might override the one in /lib when there is libgcc_s.so in
/lib, would you believe me? It is the same thing as putting a shared
libc in /usr/local/lib and expect the machine to work reliably as a
complete system.
H.J.