public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug middle-end/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?
[not found] <bug-45508-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2010-10-04 19:05 ` nicolai.stange at zmaw dot de
2011-07-18 16:07 ` [Bug driver/45508] " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: nicolai.stange at zmaw dot de @ 2010-10-04 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508
--- Comment #7 from Nicolai Stange <nicolai.stange at zmaw dot de> 2010-10-04 19:05:30 UTC ---
libgomp, libgcc and libssp are the shared libs of gcc.
(actually the correct libstdc++ and libgfortran are also found if the correct
libgcc is found as they never are linked in without it).
libgomp comes with an spec file that is installed into the lib dir.
I've added switches to gcc's configure to specify the link specs of these two
libs.
I've tested it and it works perfectly for me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?
[not found] <bug-45508-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-10-04 19:05 ` [Bug middle-end/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense? nicolai.stange at zmaw dot de
@ 2011-07-18 16:07 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-25 17:00 ` gellert at dkrz dot de
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-18 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?
[not found] <bug-45508-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-10-04 19:05 ` [Bug middle-end/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense? nicolai.stange at zmaw dot de
2011-07-18 16:07 ` [Bug driver/45508] " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-25 17:00 ` gellert at dkrz dot de
2012-10-04 12:47 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2013-06-21 16:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: gellert at dkrz dot de @ 2012-09-25 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?
[not found] <bug-45508-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-25 17:00 ` gellert at dkrz dot de
@ 2012-10-04 12:47 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2013-06-21 16:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2012-10-04 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug driver/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?
[not found] <bug-45508-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-04 12:47 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2013-06-21 16:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-06-21 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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. ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-06-21 16:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-45508-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-10-04 19:05 ` [Bug middle-end/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense? nicolai.stange at zmaw dot de
2011-07-18 16:07 ` [Bug driver/45508] " ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-25 17:00 ` gellert at dkrz dot de
2012-10-04 12:47 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2013-06-21 16:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).