On 10/18/2010 12:51 AM, David Holmes wrote: > Just to revive this ... > > Andrew Haley said the following on 09/27/10 20:06: >> In practice, it's often the other way round: static linking with >> libgcc on GNU/Linux causes more problems than it solves. If we're not >> linking statically with libgcc now, it would be risky to start doing >> so again. > > So the current situation is that if you build with gcc 3.x you will get > static linking and with 4.x you won't. This seems to me to be an > oversight when we moved to gcc 4 builds. > > That said, the lack of static linking does not appear to have harmed > anything. > > So do we just leave this as-is or try to rectify it?
Please leave it as it is. We gcc maintainers moved from statically linking libgcc to making it a dynamic library because of a library versioning problem. If, in a single process, two shared objects (or one shared object and a main program) are linked against different versions of libgcc all manner of things may break. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-04/msg00610.html Andrew.
