Skip libgcc?

Dave Korn
Tue Jan 3 18:25:00 GMT 2006

Chris Telting wrote:

> Libgcc from my experiance is only necessary for executables. Compiling
> libraries should work fine as is whitnessed by gcc using it's own
> intermediate xgcc to compile it's libgcc.

  No, this is just a symptom of the fact that missing symbols aren't detected
until final link time and you don't finally-link a library when building it.

 Or to put it another way, compiling stuff that you never intend to link ever
will work fine without libgcc, but compiling a library without libgcc will
just give you a library with missing symbols that will cause any exe you tried
linking it with to also have missing symbols.

  Just to make it absolutely clear, you can't even compile something as simple
as "a = b/c;" on a system that doesn't have a built-in assembler division
instruction without having libgcc.  Libgcc is vital.

Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ,
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to

More information about the crossgcc mailing list