https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to m...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10) > I've related 15428 which has some details for why this is the way it is. > > Unless the underlying bug has been fixed in the linker, changing this will > merely re-introduce the previous bug that was fixed. If we do that, we need > to weigh which feature we want to work and which to break. The previous > answer, was to make static linking work. > > See 2004-06-03 Matt Austern <aust...@apple.com> and 2004-03-12 Matt > Austern <aust...@apple.com> for the totality of the code. Yup .. I've been looking at that. We already have the linker version, so should be able to make an intelligent choice. However, as I read the original bug (against powerpc-darwin7), it might actually be ar that's the problem - since it's the presence of weak extern symbols in the archive TOC that's the issue. If that's the case, I'm sure we can run a config. test to see if ar meets the criteria. Anyway, trying to work my way back to a cut-off point (I don't have an easy way to test if powerpc-darwin7 will actually bootstrap any recent GCC - but suspect that it will not without an updated as/ld at minimum).
