Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 08:55:18 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: "Chris J. Layne" <coredump@nervosa.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: just a small observation Message-ID: <199605231455.IAA15769@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960523004642.1378A-100000@onyx.nervosa.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960523004642.1378A-100000@onyx.nervosa.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> /usr/bin/ld -e start -dc -dp -o foo /usr/lib/crt0.o /var/tmp/cc0013731.o > /usr/lib/libgcc.a -lc /usr/lib/libgcc.a .. > question, why does gcc cause ld to link in the libgcc library more than > once? Because there are dependencies that are necessary. > And is there any reason it isn't using the shared gcc library? Yes. Shared libraries should be for things that are *common* across OS's. Making *everything* a shared libraries means that anytime that library changes the user is forced to keep the old shlib around. For things like libgcc, anytime gcc is updated means the *entire* library is different. Making things like libc into shlibs is good, but the 'everything' is a shlib is a bad thing we've seen in the past. Having use 'real' shlibs for some time now, we have slowly moved back into what I would hope is an acceptable compromise between 'usefulness' and 'overboard'. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605231455.IAA15769>