On Mar 15, 2002, Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
