[Bug libstdc++/32354] libstdc++.so.6 missing RPATH

2013-07-09 Thread chapter34 at yahoo dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32354 Mark R. Bannister changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chapter34 at yahoo dot com --- Commen

[Bug libstdc++/32354] libstdc++.so.6 missing RPATH

2010-04-21 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-21 16:13 --- P.S. the workaround is a hack and not ideal, because it adds RPATH=$ORIGIN to every binary object that gets built including the front-end drivers, cc1plus, collect2 etc. but it is only needed by shared libs that depen

[Bug libstdc++/32354] libstdc++.so.6 missing RPATH

2010-04-21 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-21 16:08 --- I've just been bitten by this on Solaris 10, and I think lots more people will be now that gcc 4.5.0 has been released. The problem is made worse if libstdc++ (or libgomp etc.) is built with symbol versioning enabled b

[Bug libstdc++/32354] libstdc++.so.6 missing RPATH

2009-07-15 Thread joerg dot richter at pdv-fs dot de
--- Comment #8 from joerg dot richter at pdv-fs dot de 2009-07-15 15:13 --- If you mean that i.e. libgomp.so.1.0.0 and libssp.so.0.0.0 have the same bug. Than yes. They reference libgcc_s.so.1 without setting RPATH to '$ORIGIN'. So this issue isn't libstdc++ specific. Changing compon

[Bug libstdc++/32354] libstdc++.so.6 missing RPATH

2009-07-15 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-15 14:18 --- At minimum, somebody should check if it's still true that this possible issue isn't limited to libstdc++. Then the course of action will be very simple: again invalid or not a libstdc++ proper issue or a fix to

[Bug libstdc++/32354] libstdc++.so.6 missing RPATH

2009-07-15 Thread joerg dot richter at pdv-fs dot de
--- Comment #6 from joerg dot richter at pdv-fs dot de 2009-07-15 13:15 --- I stumpled across the same problem recently. Executable references both libstdc++.so and libgcc_s.so. libstdc++.so references libgcc_s.so. Both executable dependencies will be correctly resolved (due to RPATH)

[Bug libstdc++/32354] libstdc++.so.6 missing RPATH

2007-06-17 Thread stephan dot bergmann at sun dot com
--- Comment #5 from stephan dot bergmann at sun dot com 2007-06-18 06:54 --- Re #3: is not relevant here. That info is about how client code can find libstdc++.so. This issue is about how libstdc++.so can find the libraries

[Bug libstdc++/32354] libstdc++.so.6 missing RPATH

2007-06-15 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-15 15:14 --- RPATH is evil. Yes others say LD_LIBRARY_PATH is evil, but RPATH is worse. It forces that version of the library to be used and no other version can be used. So if you install libstdc++/libgcc_s.so in a different

[Bug libstdc++/32354] libstdc++.so.6 missing RPATH

2007-06-15 Thread pcarlini at suse dot de
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-06-15 14:41 --- I'm not an expert of these matters, but I'm trying to understand this issue in better detail. First, there is the info at the end of this page: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/install.html >From that info, I sus

[Bug libstdc++/32354] libstdc++.so.6 missing RPATH

2007-06-15 Thread stephan dot bergmann at sun dot com
--- Comment #2 from stephan dot bergmann at sun dot com 2007-06-15 14:00 --- see -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32354

[Bug libstdc++/32354] libstdc++.so.6 missing RPATH

2007-06-15 Thread pcarlini at suse dot de
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-06-15 13:45 --- Please remind us why exactly we want it and / or which specific problem you are experiencing -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32354