Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

[Mark Mitchell]

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

    Daniel> For Debian, at least, I'm going to have to recommend that
    Daniel> we not build a shared libgcc.  IIRC, there is an option to
    Daniel> build other libraries shared, and maintain a static libgcc
    Daniel> - right?

Why not build the library (so that users that want it can use it)
but change the GCC driver to not use it by default, if you think that
will be best for your users?

If you do not build it, you're making it impossible for people to
correct semantics in some cases.

    Daniel> This may be an already-hashed-out question, whose answer I
    Daniel> just lost in the confusion... for programs which are
    Daniel> neither shared libraries themselves nor written in
    Daniel> C++/Java/etc, is there any correctness loss in a static
    Daniel> libgcc?  Is this feasible?

There should be no correctness issue for C programs.

Note that for C programs (as opposed to C shared libraries), we still
use -static-libgcc by default.  So, it maybe that we already do what
you want.

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