[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: printing exceptions?
From: |
Alexandre Oliva |
Subject: |
Re: printing exceptions? |
Date: |
15 Mar 2002 20:35:39 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0805 (Gnus v5.8.5) Emacs/20.7 |
On Mar 15, 2002, Richard Henderson <address@hidden> 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 address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer