On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Óscar Fuentes <[email protected]> wrote: > Ray Donnelly <[email protected]> > writes: > >> No, you are entirely incorrect and spreading misinformation I'm >> afraid. For MinGW-w64 to operate correctly, the only type of PECOFF >> that should ever be linked with -static-libgcc is an entirely static >> executable. It's got nothing to do with philosophy or preference, it's >> to do with segfaults in your code or passing segfaults onto people who >> use your code (as the tcl/tk developers did to Oscar). > > Please note that there are reports about crashes where the main > executable does not depend on libgcc*.dll at all (hence no > -static-libgcc needed) but some of the dlls (plugins) it loads on demand > do depend on libgcc. The only known solution is (was?) to build those > dlls with -static-libgcc. This is probably the reason why the Tcl guys > added -static-libgcc to their build. > > Apart from that, libgcc*.dll comes with some hefty licensing issues. >
It makes no difference if you link statically or dynamically to libgcc, from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html .. While combining libgcc with GCC-compiled object code is probably the most common way the exception is used, neither the GPL nor the GCC Runtime Library Exception distinguish between static linking, dynamic linking, and other methods for combining code in their conditions. The same permissions are available to you, under the same terms, no matter which method you use." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Msys2-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/msys2-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Msys2-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/msys2-users
