Re: Issues with shared libgcc
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:27:35AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:22:27AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:41:20AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > Is anyone else following the discussion on gcc@gcc.gnu.org? Does anyone
> > > else have thoughts?
> > >
> > > I'm -exceedingly- tempted to go for -static-libgcc by default for shared
> > > libraries which do not use C++.
> >
> > Why? I don't understand what the problem would be if we were to put libgcc
> > in its own package in /lib. Most of the stuff on gcc@gcc.gnu.org has been
> > "if I install my own gcc in an AFS-mounted directory, or in /usr/local"
> > which isn't relevant to Debian. Enabling for -static-libgcc for shared
> > libraries which don't use C++ (or Java, and I don't know how Ada and
> > Objective C fit into all this) seems an easy way to get a lot of edge
> > case bugs.
>
> I am worried about upgrades; glibc would depend on this library. I
> don't have any specific fears unless they go changing ABI on us, but
> it's Yet Another Thing which could break; I'm just trying to get them
> to limit the shared case to where it is actually called for.
Having glibc depend on it is one of my largest fears. The chance of
breakage is extreme when the core C library must depend on something
else for it to work.
Can we have a libgcc.so and a libgcc.a at the same time? If so can we
force all of the libs in glibc to link with the latter while binaries
link with libgcc.so?
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: