http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55571
Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |rth at gcc dot gnu.org |gnu.org | --- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-03 15:34:18 UTC --- I think Jakub's idea is a bit overkill. We're just in need of a barrier, and we ought to be able to get one. Perhaps we should be linking libgcc_s.so itself against the static libgcc? Although I can't recall why we're placing the __sync functions in the static library in the first place. It's not like they're required to be unique. I guess I'll have to dig that out of the mail archives...