https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84153
Brett Neumeier <bneumeier at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |---
--- Comment #2 from Brett Neumeier <bneumeier at gmail dot com> ---
LD_LIBRARY_PATH is not a good solution. The same issue occurs when using a
cross-toolchain; when cross-compiling some programs, like texinfo, a native
compiler is used to compile some programs that apparently need to be run during
the texinfo build process. This is done with LD_LIBRARY_PATH explicitly unset,
so once again the lack of an RPATH or RUNPATH in cc1 causes a build failure.
Using static libraries would work, but why should that be the recommended
solution? Using RPATH or RUNPATH would resolve the problem elegantly and is
exactly what those facilities are for. If an explicit directory is provided for
these dependency libraries, what is the justification for _not_ having programs
that require them set with an RPATH that uses those directories?
