c++/10268: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found

c++/10268: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

>Number:         10268
>Category:       c++
>Synopsis:       C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Sun Mar 30 11:46:01 UTC 2003
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Hallvard B Furuseth
>Release:        3.2.2
>Organization:
>Environment:
System: SunOS bombur.uio.no 5.8 Generic_108528-13 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10
Architecture: sun4

	
host: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
build: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
target: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
configured with: ../gcc-3.2.2/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,f77 --prefix=/usit/bombur/hbf --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs --enable-threads
>Description:
	C++ executables fail with
	ld.so.1: ./a.out: fatal: libstdc++.so.5: open failed:
		No such file or directory
>How-To-Repeat:
bash$ cat a.cc
int main(void) { return 0; }
bash$ g++ -c a.cc
bash$ g++ -v a.o
Reading specs from
	/usit/bombur/hbf/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.2.2/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.2.2/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,f77
	--prefix=/usit/bombur/hbf --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
	--enable-threads
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.2.2
 /usit/bombur/hbf/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.2.2/collect2 -V
	-Y P,/usr/ccs/lib:/usr/lib
	-Qy
	/usit/bombur/hbf/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.2.2/crt1.o
	/usit/bombur/hbf/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.2.2/crti.o
	/usr/ccs/lib/values-Xa.o
	/usit/bombur/hbf/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.2.2/crtbegin.o
	-L/usit/bombur/hbf/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.2.2
	-L/usr/ccs/bin -L/usr/ccs/lib
	-L/usit/bombur/hbf/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.2.2/../../..
	a.o -lstdc++ -lm -lgcc_s -lgcc -lc -lgcc_s -lgcc -lc
	/usit/bombur/hbf/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.2.2/crtend.o
	/usit/bombur/hbf/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.2.2/crtn.o
ld: Software Generation Utilities - Solaris-ELF (4.0)
bash$ ./a.out 
ld.so.1: ./a.out: fatal: libstdc++.so.5: open failed: No such file or directory
Killed
>Fix:
Workaround:

bash$ g++ -R/usit/bombur/hbf/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/3.2.2 -v a.o
bash$ ./a.out
bash$

Note: I configured with --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs.
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:

Re: c++/10268: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found

[Phil Edwards]

The following reply was made to PR c++/10268; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com>
To: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Cc: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>, gcc-bugs@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 10:32:46 -0500

 On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 04:57:50PM +0200, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
 > [I've excluded gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org from the cc: list, since it rejects
 > mail from "outsiders".]
 
 It's a read-only address, don't feel bad.  :-)  It shouldn't be showing up
 in the To/Cc headers at all.  (It's a bug on our end.)
 
 -- 
 If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
 than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
 not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
 and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams

Re: c++/10268: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/10268; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
Cc: gcc-bugs@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 16:59:56 +0200

 Christian Ehrhardt writes:
 > This is even covered by the gcc FAQ at http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#rpath
 
 Note: THe FAQ entry need a change: It doesn't occur only if one
 configures with --enable-shared, but also if one configures without
 --disable-shared.
 
 -- 
 Hallvard

Re: c++/10268: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/10268; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
Cc: gcc-bugs@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 16:57:50 +0200

 [I've excluded gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org from the cc: list, since it rejects
 mail from "outsiders".]
 
 Christian Ehrhardt writes:
 > This is even covered by the gcc FAQ at http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#rpath
 
 Oops.
 
 >> 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!
 
 Oh.  I found it in the typescript now, I think it scrolled away during
 installation.  Though I still think a warning at the end of configure
 would be better (so it wouldn't scroll away).  I think I've seen the
 warning before though.  I guess it just didn't occur to me that it
 applied even if I didn't use the -L option myself.
 
 Thanks.
 
 -- 
 Hallvard

Re: c++/10268: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found

[Christian Ehrhardt]

The following reply was made to PR c++/10268; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Christian Ehrhardt" <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
To: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
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!

Re: c++/10268: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/10268; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
To: ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de,
    gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
    gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/10268: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:14:10 +0200

 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.
 
 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.
 
 If you don't want to do that, I it would be better to remove the
 -L<path> too from g++'s defaults, at least that way the user won't think
 he has built a working executable just because he compiled with standard
 options and the compilation succeeded.
 
 And document this, and how one is supposed to make it work.
 Requiring users to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH at run time is a silly default,
 and setting environment variables doesn't work well in Makefiles anyway,
 but I suppose one could add this to Makefile:
   LDFLAGS=-R`g++ -print-file-name=libstdc++.so.5 | sed 's%/[^/]*$%%'`
 (Does that work if there are other libstdc++'s in the path?)
 Or better, some new command which doesn't require the user to understand
 sed and pipes.  I've noticed there is a libgcc_s.so as well which only
 seems to be used by g++, is that always in the same location as
 libstdc++.so or can one need another -R for that?
 
 BTW, can I configure gcc to put that directory in the path for g++ but
 not for gcc, or edit the specs file to do so?
 
 -- 
 Hallvard

Re: c++/10268: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found

[ehrhardt]

Synopsis: C++ executables fail: libstdc++.so.5 not found

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: cae
State-Changed-When: Sun Mar 30 17:24:09 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    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.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10268