libgcc_s.so 3.4 vs 3.0 compatibility
Currently the libgcc_s.so library has the same version in 3.4 and 4.0, i.e libgcc_s.so.1 (SONAME = libgcc_s.so.1). Is this as expected? Are the 2 libraries compatible? Interchangeable? Looking in the map file, I don't think so. If not, how can I make the most correct separation for a 3.4 and 4.0 cohabitation? --- the 2 versions are installed in separate directories, however, the run-path, used by the dynamic linker, containing libgcc_s.so is shared. If someone can give me a pointer toward the relevant documentation I would be grateful. -- Peter FELECAN
Re: libgcc_s.so 3.4 vs 3.0 compatibility
Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 02:23:26PM +0200, Peter FELECAN wrote: > > Currently the libgcc_s.so library has the same version in 3.4 and 4.0, > > i.e libgcc_s.so.1 (SONAME = libgcc_s.so.1). > > > > Is this as expected? > > Yes. > > > Are the 2 libraries compatible? Interchangeable? Looking in the map > > file, I don't think so. > > There is backwards compatibility. So you want the latest libgcc_s.so.1 > from the compilers used to build your applications. Thank you Jakub. I should understand that, as usual, there is no "backward" compatibility. My worry being the case when somebody, having installed 3.4 and 4.0, in this order, updates the previous compiler, 3.4, and unknowingly replaces the latest library. For this, I think that additional instrumentations are required by the corresponding packages. Consequently, it is the role of the packager to assure an hermetic separation. -- Peter FELECAN mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libgcc_s.so 3.4 vs 3.0 compatibility
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 02:23:26PM +0200, Peter FELECAN wrote: > > > > Currently the libgcc_s.so library has the same version in 3.4 and 4.0, > > > > i.e libgcc_s.so.1 (SONAME = libgcc_s.so.1). > > > > > > > > Is this as expected? > > Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Yes. > > Peter: > > > > Are the 2 libraries compatible? Interchangeable? Looking in the map > > > > file, I don't think so. > > Jakub: > > > There is backwards compatibility. So you want the latest libgcc_s.so.1 > > > from the compilers used to build your applications. > > Peter: > > I should understand that, as usual, there is no "backward" > > compatibility. My worry being the case when somebody, having installed > > 3.4 and 4.0, in this order, updates the previous compiler, 3.4, and > > unknowingly replaces the latest library. For this, I think that > > additional instrumentations are required by the corresponding > > packages. Consequently, it is the role of the packager to assure an > > hermetic separation. > > No, I think you misunderstood Jakub. If 4.0 is installed second, it will > update the libgcc_s.so.1, and all the apps compiled with either compiler > will continue to work. You want to avoid the reverse situation, where 4.0 > is installed first and then 3.4. Joe, I understood Jakub. My fingers writing "backward" instead of "forward" are wrong :-) Anyway, thank you for the comment which confirms my understanding. -- Peter FELECAN mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
