Mail Archives: cygwin/2009/08/09/13:58:25
On 09/08/2009 08:52, Charles Wilson wrote:
> It just can't be that simple, can it? Well, for *libgcc* I guess it can,
> because there is no libgcc.la. However, we also need similar
> functionality for the other runtime libraries, but they DO have .la
> files which throws a monkey wrench into the mix.
Wouldn't those be governed by -static like any other library?
> Oh, I just thought of something. The user would need to ensure that
> when libtool is generated (e.g. during configure), LDFLAGS includes the
> intended -{shared,static}-libgcc flag. Otherwise, libtool's *_postdeps
> variable will not include the "correct" list of libraries. But then,
> what happens if you use a different -{static,shared}-libgcc at actual
> linktime? Or if you link some targets one way, and other targets the
> other way?
AFAICS $postdeps is only used for CXX, which uses -nostdlib at the same
time, so AFAIK neither -{shared,static}-libgcc would have any affect at
that point.
But that would mean that, as you suspect, you have to decide CXX libgcc
linkage at configure time. That is an issue which this patch neither
causes nor fixes.
> P.S. Have you gotten an acknowledgment from the FSF that they have
> received your completed paperwork?
Yes.
Yaakov
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -