Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Feb 16, 2001, Brad Lucier <lucier@math.purdue.edu> wrote:

> Is the following suggestion of Theodore Papadopoulo reasonable?

It has been suggested before.  I myself tried it once.  At that time,
it was rejected.  The argument was that hard-coding search paths in
executables would cause them to fail should the hard-coded directory
become unavailable (as in an NFS server down).  Not even setting
LD_LIBRARY_PATH would get you around the problem.

I must confess that this may indeed be a problem, but it's rare enough
that I always patch local builds of GCC so that their specs
automatically get executables to search the right place.

Which, unfortunately, is not exactly the directory that would be
searched if GCC were to do it on itself.  So, in a sense, the fact
that GCC doesn't do it by default is a good thing for my local
installations.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me