Re: Shared libgcc instead of static

[Christer Solskogen <christer dot solskogen at gmail dot com>]

On 03.11.2015 03.38, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2015 22:20, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> > I'm having some fun trying to create a linux system that uses shared
> > libraries as much as possible, trying to avoid static ones.
> > glibc will fail without libgcc.a - even if libgcc.so is available. Is
> > there a technical reason for that?
>
> i'm assuming you don't actually mean "libgcc.so" but instead "libgcc_s.so".

Never assume something like that when the guy on the other side try 
something adventurous like this :-) I tricked some other software to use 
the shared libgcc instead of the static one by making a symlink from 
libgcc_s.so to libgcc.a

> in which case you're assuming that libgcc_s.so has exactly the same set of
> exported functions as libgcc.a when that is not the case.  some symbols are
> only provided by libgcc.a.  these often come down to trade-offs in how the
> ABI is implemented.

That on the other hand, is correctly assumed, sir. And it answered by 
question. Thanks! There's no way (yet!) to get rid of static libgcc.

--
chs