Re: Forcing static link of libstdc++

[Stefan Puiu]

(posting this to the list, too)

Hi, I'm actually glad you replied.

On 9/26/06, Mike Melanson <address@hidden> wrote:
> 1) Having 2 binaries would immediately double the QA effort.

Yes, but also making sure the flash plugin can statically link with
libstdc++ increased your development effort quite a bit. And if Ralf
is correct about the symbol clashes that you can experience because of
the way ELF works, I think you agree that the QA extra effort in this
case would also increase. Only the troubleshooting involved would be
more difficult , and if you have problems with ELF symbol resolution,
all the hacks you've ahd to go through would be useless.

I remember reading something about ELF symbol resolution in this
document written by Ulrich Drepper:
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto.pdf. It explains how symbols
are resolved - try reading the relevant sections (especially where the
way the ELF scope when looking up a symbol is explained) and seeing if
it
might cause problems to you. I think that's what Ralf was referring
to. In the worst case, you are looking at really unpredictable
behaviour, and I don't think you want to have to deal with that.

> 2) So far, there is only one version of gcc that can compile the Flash
> Player and it is tied to libstdc++ v6.

We've been using gcc-3.3 for quite a while and when moving to 4.0 I
found out that the latter is a lot less permissive - usually stuff
that compiles with 3.3 will break on 4.0, because of two-phase lookup.
Is it something two-phase lookup related? Is it only in one part of
the code, and reproducible in a small program?

Stefan.