https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31400
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Matt Arsenault from comment #20)
> I would find the -static-libgomp option useful
+1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31400
Matt Arsenault changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsenm2 at rpi dot edu
--- Comment #20 f
--- Comment #19 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-13 11:37 ---
Subject: Bug 31400
Author: iains
Date: Tue Apr 13 11:37:34 2010
New Revision: 158262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158262
Log:
gcc/fortran:
2010-04-13 Iain Sandoe
PR bootstrap/314
--- Comment #18 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:51 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Question being, is there a difference between darwin and, say, our average
> linux box, that allows static linking with the one, but not with the other?
yes, there is a significant differ
--- Comment #17 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:28
---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Does that help?
Much. Thanks. :)
Don't know if this is still a problem, but #0 has:
> for libgomp, one can not simply use LDFLAGS=-static as libgomp pulls in
> libpthread and static li
--- Comment #16 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:19 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > On Darwin - I made it so that if -static-* is given for {stdc++,cc, fortran}
> > the specs cause a substitution for static libgomp. Would that work for you?
>
--- Comment #15 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 21:04
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> On Darwin - I made it so that if -static-* is given for {stdc++,cc, fortran}
> the specs cause a substitution for static libgomp. Would that work for you?
Iain, I can't say as I can't
--- Comment #14 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 19:06 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Any chance to ever get -static-libgomp? Otherwise this PR can probably be
> closed?!
On Darwin - I made it so that if -static-* is given for {stdc++,cc, fortran}
the specs cause a substit
--- Comment #13 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 19:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=20349)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20349&action=view)
check for -static in lookup_option.
PR bootstrap/31400
* gfortranspec.c (lookup_option): Check
--- Comment #12 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 17:42 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> The http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=126068
> patch adds OPTION_static, but nothing ever returns that value, so the code
> setting static_linking is clearly dead code. That
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 17:05 ---
The http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=126068
patch adds OPTION_static, but nothing ever returns that value, so the code
setting static_linking is clearly dead code. That couldn't be the intent.
--
--- Comment #10 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-06 19:54
---
-static-libstdc++ was added for 4.5.0 (thanks!):
2009-06-25 Ian Lance Taylor
* g++spec.c (SKIPOPT): define.
(lang_specific_driver): Handle -static-libstdc++. Only add
LIBSTDCXX_STATIC i
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-06-17 18:16 ---
I can contribute a patch for -static-libc++/-static-libstdc++.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #8 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-28 07:00 ---
FX, thanks for your patch :)
As libgfortran is one of many, at least -static-libgomp would be nice to have
as well (others?). Reopening, so the request is not lost.
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-27 23:00
---
Fixed on mainline.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-27 22:58
---
Subject: Bug 31400
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed Jun 27 22:58:37 2007
New Revision: 126068
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=126068
Log:
PR other/31400
* gcc.c (process_command
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-14 12:13
---
Still pinging for someone to review my one-line patch to gcc.c... maybe we can
get this feature into trunk before GCC 12.0 ;-)
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-18 18:48
---
I certainly agree that we should have an option to ask the driver to link
libgfortran statically.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 16:30 ---
Andrew, I agree that static linking should not be overused. But there are valid
cases where one may want to do it anyway. Deploying a testing application may
be one of them. Asking the user to compile gcc from scratc
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 16:22 ---
In general this is wrong. There are reasons why you don't want static linking.
code size/memory usage is one of them.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31400
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-03-30 15:47 ---
You may want to look at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00783.html
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
23 matches
Mail list logo
