Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

[Joe Buck]

Geert Bosch wrote:
> > This restriction is unfortunate though, since it never was the case that 
> > the gcc library had such state, so it was perfectly fine to have multiple 
> > copies.  I really think we should have moved the exception stuff into a 
> > separate library.

Linus Torvalds writes:
> Is it too late to revisit just this decision, and at leat try to "factor
> out" the problem a bit? libgcc is needed by a _lot_ of programs,
> especially on some architectures. While exception handling is not
> necessarily an issue for many people.

Clearly enough people have raised issues with effects of shared libgcc
that we may have to consider some changes, so nothing is final.

But we can't just move exception handling to a language-specific library,
because we are attempting to support cross-language exception mechanisms
(for example, C++ and Ada).

> That way, even if no good solution that makes everybody happy is found, at
> least we confine the problem case a bit..

Let's not give up on making everybody happy just yet.