Shared library annoyance with gcc-3_0-branch

[Geert Bosch]

On 20 Feb 2001, Andreas Schwab wrote:
|Not even that.  Only one copy of the code must be _active_ during
|runtime. 

OK, if we're going to be real precise, you should say that only one copy
of the data should be active! :-)

Anyway, this is a serious departure from the original libgcc2, which
did not have state and therefore could be linked in statically without
problems. I agree with Linus that the best solution is to break out 
the EH part and put it in a separate library. Almost all of the problems
foreseen with dynamic libgcc are for programs that do not require EH.

  -Geert

BTW, what is the overhead on Linux for calling routines in dynamic
libraries as opposed to code statically linked in? Has anybody done