X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
	s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date:
	mime-version; bh=zc5HYK5Q5do4Du1S+J7HX3YLDBRRVdzfLdfAs/DoUmc=; b=MIUlNgZqKlbG
	CeAkBhH/5nHkaWTyHjKChp0zqJlbmM+u7cJ0moCcqsyj/Qh/8koD6n49/qaAFlPx2byFgdllW/pHh
	QRARcCqEWSpRZ12UwjY49VMu7dej6Mu6A3pZYLAmGwi15kCH7lYT0sMGQHSG0P+j5X5vAuOg+XGO5
	+0GGYxV8tnuLKQz8liDEEyPCi62QY8/Fr9bCSy5lPNkD07ujb7lFw72pa0kv5UwYdebZhUmQLPDbz
	HcEXN94S1LmK3VvairImge6RoYksVEz3BJX2JXBVYFKpx0coh4tJKu3zS4i/AdMWYcMevG+HHhxYo
	/jM3ybuof4GXpT+SVYTJQg==;
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2023 17:12:30 +0200
Message-Id: <83o7qh74td.fsf@gnu.org>
From: "Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:
	<CAA2C=vCCYsgtbQ5wsgbS3S4G7N+H5zi5DxCyVZLSkEKrSpifMw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	(djgpp AT delorie DOT com)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dxe3gen: invoke ld/as via gcc
References: <d67303fd-c302-82cc-bb0d-d1a21640d66f AT gmail DOT com>
 <CAA2C=vDYkF13NYPP_EXGMwzrjhLj2vEq68+-uYPfZOXpqWVRfQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <83r0vd78cu DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vCCYsgtbQ5wsgbS3S4G7N+H5zi5DxCyVZLSkEKrSpifMw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2023 17:07:45 +0300
> 
> On 1/29/23, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]
> <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> >> From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]"
> >> <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
> >> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2023 15:45:58 +0300
> >>
> >> How about the following suggestion?
> >
> > Is this really needed?  IOW, can it really happen that the compiler
> > fails to find libgcc unless explicitly told to look in the right
> > directory?
> 
> gcc can, but ld can not: my suggested patch is not on top of JW's patch
> it is against cvs where we invoke ld, not gcc. (Remember that the whole
> purpose of JW's patch is that dxe3gen can find libgcc automatically w/o
> any user effort..)

So it's an alternative patch?  If so, what do you suggest to do with
libstdc++, which AFAIU was the original motivation for the change?