Richard Biener <[email protected]> writes:
>> Exactly my words. But gcc provides zero help for that. All proposed
>> workarounds (having every user of gcc set LD_LIBRARY_PATH, messing
>> around with ldconfig or equivalent, having every single compiler user
>> provide -rpath/-R on his own) are usability or functionality nightmares
>> one way or another: the first and second don't scale (imagine a large
>> site with hundreds of machines and users), and the third imposes work on
>> the user that the compiler can do best on its own. This may be somewhat
>> acceptable for single-user/single-system installations of knowledgable
>> users, but otherwise it's just a bad joke. The compiler has all the
>> information when/how to pass -rpath/-R and should provide an option to
>> do so. And if a target has different multilibs, the user suddenly needs
>> to no not only about $libdir, but about the various multilib (sub)dirs.
>> Not what I consider user-friendly, and I've seen a large enough share of
>> somewhat experienced users fail with that.
>
> Ah, we've done that in the past for compilers with libs in
> non-standard install locations ...
>
> cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{libsubdir}/defaults.spec << EOF
> *link:
> + %%{!m32:%%{!m64:-rpath=%{libsubdir}}} %%{m32:-rpath=%{libsubdir}/32}
> %%{m64:-rpath=%{libsubdir}/64}
> EOF
>
> together with the following (ISTR it was posted but never
> approved / applied):
>
> Index: gcc/gcc.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/gcc.c.orig 2012-11-28 10:36:38.000000000 +0100
> +++ gcc/gcc.c 2012-12-11 12:30:30.053124280 +0100
> @@ -260,6 +260,7 @@ static const char *replace_outfile_spec_
> static const char *remove_outfile_spec_function (int, const char **);
> static const char *version_compare_spec_function (int, const char **);
> static const char *include_spec_function (int, const char **);
> +static const char *include_noerr_spec_function (int, const char **);
> static const char *find_file_spec_function (int, const char **);
> static const char *find_plugindir_spec_function (int, const char **);
> static const char *print_asm_header_spec_function (int, const char **);
> @@ -1293,6 +1294,7 @@ static const struct spec_function static
> { "remove-outfile", remove_outfile_spec_function },
> { "version-compare", version_compare_spec_function },
> { "include", include_spec_function },
> + { "include_noerr", include_noerr_spec_function },
> { "find-file", find_file_spec_function },
> { "find-plugindir", find_plugindir_spec_function },
> { "print-asm-header", print_asm_header_spec_function },
> @@ -6382,6 +6384,8 @@ main (int argc, char **argv)
> if (access (specs_file, R_OK) == 0)
> read_specs (specs_file, true, false);
>
> + do_self_spec ("%:include_noerr(defaults.spec)%(default_spec)");
> +
> /* Process any configure-time defaults specified for the command line
> options, via OPTION_DEFAULT_SPECS. */
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE (option_default_specs); i++)
> @@ -8271,6 +8275,21 @@ get_random_number (void)
> return ret ^ getpid();
> }
>
> +static const char *
> +include_noerr_spec_function (int argc, const char **argv)
> +{
> + char *file;
> +
> + if (argc != 1)
> + abort ();
> +
> + file = find_a_file (&startfile_prefixes, argv[0], R_OK, 0);
> + if (file)
> + read_specs (file, FALSE, TRUE);
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> /* %:compare-debug-dump-opt spec function. Save the last argument,
> expected to be the last -fdump-final-insns option, or generate a
> temporary. */
Certainly a step in the right direction, though it will add RPATH in
more cases than necessary. I've a couple of ideas for that, and would
like to use $ORIGIN if available for inter-runtime lib dependencies to
retain relocatability. I'll see how far I come during the next release
cycle.
>> > For this particular case at least.
>> >
>> > Note that I'm not against linking against static libgcc_s for
>> > lto-plugin. The -static-libstdc++ we use is just because during
>> > bootstrap picking up the correct libstdc++ was deemed too hard
>> > to implement and thus the easy way out was -static-libstdc++.
>>
>> So how should we go forward with this issue? This bootstrap failure is
>> a regression from all previous releases. As I said, I'd rather not
>> duplicate the -static-libgcc test from the toplevel, but would do so if
>> all else fails. Perhaps Paolo could weigh in as the build maintainer?
>
> Yeah, I'd like a build maintainer to look over your first proposed patch
> (workaround libtools nicyness).
Just one additional data point: I've checked mainline libtool, and it
still doesn't handle (meaning: still drops)
-static-libgcc/-static-libstdc++. At least they have some hints in
their documentation on what testing etc. it takes to get additional
options passed through to the compiler/linker.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
