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=nKW9frKhbpYCx174JQJIbb4PeBR9j7THLKthvbeR8zc=; b=r0xIrcKXxJ4S
	hmljOp/ozsp+49DniZTuXDmfA1fss9UVHlBNWYwmmiw+2P+Zk2SzfBoUOnZ/n/VW4livsBdU1mLDk
	FPAscc4PQEDXuOD2BojP9AgnvzTs+hZUs4MY6xkgAOXQpw1ozVc/QBd7zWBCL6pogvDV0zle8DsYp
	/5lLG4sp02mU2vDMft6f7XDoNOQiBVxx+WvrWxpjoHmAWf+qqXws31Wrru70/Hz2yhP7xS9dZlHQD
	TVR92qbX72coy6eFUIdpQz6bK6vIKc/9ceZnZaPj0SMC53CUgDc+6NPEsm8gFowLKPcnvn+SnF70w
	Xd0hTq3PVrBIFyMesRwEQw==;
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2023 17:44:02 +0200
Message-Id: <83h6w973ct.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=vDT10ZGfa3Mi2x0syvoT44Q3nfgcMfOwMZF=dM+ruL5OA 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>
 <83o7qh74td DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vDT10ZGfa3Mi2x0syvoT44Q3nfgcMfOwMZF=dM+ruL5OA 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 18:20:15 +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?
> 
> Yes
> 
> >  If so, what do you suggest to do with
> > libstdc++, which AFAIU was the original motivation for the change?
> 
> Aren't all gcc-provided versioned libraries residing in the same dir?
> My patch just relies on that.

Maybe so, I simply don't know.  So I think the code should have a
comment to that effect.