[Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||benoit.hudson at gmail dot com --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 7957 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508 --- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-04 12:46:34 UTC --- --- Comment #9 from gellert at dkrz dot de 2012-09-25 17:00:22 UTC --- [...] I agree that gcc/g++/... not adding needed RPATHs to its runtime libraries is a major nuissance for every site with more than a single system and a central installation of gcc and it has bothered me for a long time. I'm (slowly) working towards a generic approach to solve this problem, maybe I'll have something ready for gcc 4.7.0. well, anything done already? If not, what kind of solution do you have in mind? Unfortunately not since I had to massively cut down my gcc work in recent months. The work consists of 3 parts, I think: * A configure option to selectively enable/disable this since unconditional enabling has found massive opposition in the past. * Changing the build procedure so shared runtime libraries are optionally build with RPATHs pointing at the installed locations of their dependencies. * Changing the drivers to add RPATHs for the shared runtime libraries linked. No idea when I'll get around to this, unfortunately. Rainer
[Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508 gellert at dkrz dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gellert at dkrz dot de --- Comment #9 from gellert at dkrz dot de 2012-09-25 17:00:22 UTC --- Hi there, it's always a pleasure to comment on an old thread. :-) I think handling this via specs is the wrong (read: far too complicated) approach. well, maybe, but at least it's better to have something that works than having nothing. I agree that gcc/g++/... not adding needed RPATHs to its runtime libraries is a major nuissance for every site with more than a single system and a central installation of gcc and it has bothered me for a long time. I'm (slowly) working towards a generic approach to solve this problem, maybe I'll have something ready for gcc 4.7.0. well, anything done already? If not, what kind of solution do you have in mind? Cheers, Olaf
[Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508 Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2011.07.18 16:06:22 CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org Component|middle-end |driver Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-18 16:06:22 UTC --- I think handling this via specs is the wrong (read: far too complicated) approach. I agree that gcc/g++/... not adding needed RPATHs to its runtime libraries is a major nuissance for every site with more than a single system and a central installation of gcc and it has bothered me for a long time. I'm (slowly) working towards a generic approach to solve this problem, maybe I'll have something ready for gcc 4.7.0.
