gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: forcing most functions of libiberty in plugin-enabled cc1

Subject: Re: forcing most functions of libiberty in plugin-enabled cc1
From: "H.J. Lu"
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:10:37 -0800
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
<basile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rainer Orth wrote:
>>
>> Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> The answer use --whole-archive is not adequate, unless the
>>> --whole-archive
>>> option is available on every system on which GCC wants to permit
>>> plugins. If that is the case (I really don't know), then we should
>>> *force*
>>> that option, or any other way of making libiberty available, into the GCC
>>> core! This probably means a Makefile.in patch at least, and probably a
>>> configure.ac patch also.
>>
>> Why not just build PIC objects from libiberty,
>
> This was already explained by  Ralf Wildenhues
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-07/msg00166.html
> In short: mixing a statically linked function with a dynamically linked
> variant of the same function accessing static variables is an "oportunity
> for subtle bugs". And the point is that libiberty provide several such
> functions.
>

Why not build/install libiberty.so for plugin.



-- 
H.J.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>