Oleg Endo <oleg.e...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> So apparently the strange behavior I observed is intended. Presumably
>> there is some mechanism to ensure that these functions are always
>> static-linked? But I don't see it. The libgcc spec I see is:
>>
>> *libgcc:
>> %{static|static-libgcc:-lgcc
>> -lgcc_eh}%{!static:%{!static-libgcc:%{!shared-libgcc:-lgcc --as-needed
>> -lgcc_s --no-as-needed}%{shared-libgcc:-lgcc_s%{!shared: -lgcc}}}}
>>
>> This explicitly omits -lgcc when -shared-libgcc is used with -shared.
>> Thankfully __ashlsi3_r0 is not exported from libgcc.so.1 (as far as I
>> can tell), so this will just be a link error rather than horribly
>> wrong behavior, but it still seems like there's a bug here unless I'm
>> misunderstanding something. I think the final %{!shared: -lgcc} in the
>> spec is an error and should be replaced by simply -lgcc if there are
>> targets where libgcc.a contains necessary symbols that are not/cannot
>> be defined in libgcc_s.so.1.
>
> Hm, maybe, but I don't know enough about this, sorry. Kaz, maybe you
> have a comment on that?
Sorry for my late reply. I was traveling.
I think that almost linux targets uses linker script libgcc_s.so
which includes -lgcc. See trunk/libgcc/config/t-slibgcc-libgcc.
The target micro functions are statically linked with it.
Regards,
kaz
