-shared-libgcc vs. -static -static-libgcc

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Feb 28, 2002, Bryce McKinlay <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Ok, here's what I've come up with.  Tested on athlon-pc-linux-gnu,
>> both with and without a recent ld.  libstdc++-v3 and libjava built
>> correctly (i.e., were linked with libgcc_s), and libjava binaries no
>> longer depend directly on libgcc_s, as intended.

> Is there a correctness issue here or is it just a matter of style &
> efficiency to not depend directly on it?

The latter, I suppose.  But now that I think more of it, I'm not
really sure it's appropriate to not have them directly linked with the
shared libgcc, since they are linked with libgcj that is linked with
libgcc_s.  Hmm...

-- 
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                Professional serial bug killer