Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch
Daniel Jacobowitz
dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu
Sun Feb 18 21:51:00 GMT 2001
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:37:01PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >>>>> "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.
I agree, this sounds like a better idea.
> 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.
Will this behave correctly if glibc explicitly does not link to
libgcc_s? That seems like it would defeat the purpose of of having a
shared libgcc fairly thoroughly. My goal is to get C programs, at
least those which require no shared libraries beyong the standard C
library, to run without shared libgcc being available; I consider this
a robustness issue. It may not be feasible, though.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan@debian.org | | dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
More information about the Gcc
mailing list