On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote: >> >> Ｔhat is because libgcc_s.so is preferred by g++. We can do one >> of 3 things: >> >> 1. Abuse libgcc_eh.a by moving __cpu_model and __cpu_indicator_init >> from libgcc.a to libgcc_eh.a. >> 2. Rename libgcc_eh.a to libgcc_static.a and move __cpu_model and >> __cpu_indicator_init from libgcc.a to libgcc_static.a. >> 3. Add libgcc_static.a and move __cpu_model and __cpu_indicator_ini >> from libgcc.a to libgcc_static.a. We treat libgcc_static.a similar to >> libgcc_eh.a. > > Any reason why gcc should not be made to prefer libgcc_s.so too like g++? > > Thanks for clearing this up. I will take a stab at it. >
This is a long story. The short answer is people didn't want to add libgcc_s.so to DT_NEEDED for C programs. But it is no longer an issue since we now pass -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed -lc -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed to linker. -- H.J.
