[adtools] Re: -use-dynld - Why was it added?
- From: Sebastian Bauer <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: adtools@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 09:01:55 +0200
Hi!
Hans-Joerg Frieden <Hans-JoergF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb:
> > Sounds reasonable. Did we rename libgcc_s.so to libgcc.so to provide a
> > shared libgcc that "just works" (unless you're using libtool) without
> > having to understand gcc's link specs, or was there more to it than
> > that?
>
> To be honest, I don't know. I don't think I have done anything like that
> in any GCC I built, but then, I don't know whether it included a
> libgcc.so at all.
Can we summarize what it is still needed to bring our GCC in sync with the
SDK? The only thing I'm aware of is the missing DT_NEEDED tags in the
generated libstc++.so file. Are their other differences between the adtools
build from the SDK provided ones? (apart from some location issues)
I started to import GCC 4.5.1 vendor sources some days ago and I like to merge
our changes into a new custom branch as soon as my time allows to do so. GCC
brings a plugin interface and I'm quite eager to know whether we can move some
of our code changes into a plugin. But I like to be sure that the other
branches are stable enough.
Bye,
Sebastian
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Amiga Development tools ML - //www.freelists.org/list/adtools
Homepage...................: http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/adtools
Listserver help............: mailto:adtools-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=HELP
Other related posts:
