printing exceptions?

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Mar 15, 2002, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 07:43:43PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Another possibility that occurred to me, that would further alleviate
>> the problem of duplicate shared libraries, would be to get GCC to no
>> longer issue the `-lgcc_s -lc -lgcc_s' sequence, but instead, to use
>> just `-lgcc_s -lc'.

> Seems ok.

Yay!  I'll try to implement this in the next few days.

>> We'd might still have to add duplicates for -lgcc and -lgcc_eh...

> Not for gcc_eh.  The point of the duplicate is to cater to a libc
> that uses e.g. __divdi3.

More specifically, and static libc that uses __divdi3, since a shared
one would have its own __divdi3, no?

However, I kind of fail to see the point of having -lgcc before -lc.
I understand the idea is to resolve symbols of the program with the
implementations in libgcc, but what if the program doesn't reference a
symbol, but libc does?  Then, we won't get the definition from libgcc,
but rather from libc itself.  Could this ever be a problem?  If not,
why don't we just drop the -lgcc from before -lc and stick with the
one after -lc only?

-- 
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