http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.2 |4.5.3
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-10-27
12:44:16 UTC ---
Linker does that if -lfoo instead of libfoo.a form is used in the linker
script.
So perhaps we could just use that. As libgcc_s linker script name is different
and -lgcc is only a lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46191
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-10-27 12:02:35 UTC ---
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Using absolute names is undesirable too, because then gcc is not actually
> relocatable. Guess we want somethin
