From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13802 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2003 14:46:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13788 invoked by uid 71); 31 Mar 2003 14:46:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030331144601.13785.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Christian Ehrhardt" Subject: Re: c++/10268: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found Reply-To: "Christian Ehrhardt" X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg02107.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/10268; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Christian Ehrhardt" To: Hallvard B Furuseth Cc: ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/10268: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:44:45 +0200 This whole issue has been discussed many times on the gcc lists and this is not going to change any time soon. Note that this doesn't mean that I like the result of this discussion. This is even covered by the gcc FAQ at http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#rpath On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 12:14:10PM +0200, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: > ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de writes: > > This behaviour is intentional. -R adds paths to the executable and > > gcc should not add system specific paths to an executable. > > You can either set LD_RUN_PATH at compile time or LD_LIBRARY_PATH > > at run time. > > *What*? Why is it better to have an executable which doesn't work than > one where GCC has added a path which is needed to make it work? In > particular since the user must add the same path to make it work anyway. Because that path might have unexpected effects if the executable is transfered to another machine. > If you don't want to add to the executable's path, I think you should > only build static libraries. If one configures gcc to build dynamic > libraries, add the path and warn about whatever the problem is with > adding such a path, or don't add it and give a very loud warning that > g++ will build executables that don't work. There is a loud warning when you install the shared libraries! > And document this, and how one is supposed to make it work. See the FAQ entry mentioned above. regards Christian -- THAT'S ALL FOLKS!