It may be possible, but it requires fundamentally changing the way gcc works, with respect to libgcc.
Are you *sure* that blastwave didn't required LD_LIBRARY_PATH to be set too and you just didn't notice because no binary you built actually required libgcc? Only when the C code becomes complicated enough (and mathematical enough), does it require this. Take a look at libgcc. Almost everything in it is arithmetic in nature. Maybe now that you are working on a piece of mathematical software, you are noticing this issue for the first time. Bill. On Feb 12, 12:23 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" <[email protected]> wrote: > Bill Hart wrote: > > You can't get around requiring LD_LIBRARY_PATH to be set on Solaris > > Sparc. similarly for LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. The libgcc is required by > > some binaries gcc generates, and your linker has to be able to find > > it. After all, you could have put it anywhere and the linker doesn't > > have any guidelines on where to look! > > I know it *is* possible to make a gcc which does not require LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > Blastwave produce one, which resides in /opt/csw if you download it. That > works > without setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > > I just need to sort out the exact method of doing this. LD_LIBRARY_PATH is > not a > nice solution. > > > You can also set an rpath when building, but that is essentially > > equivalent. > > Bill. > > Well, it means the user does not need to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH. I just need to > sort out the exact way of doing this. I'm in discussions with Dennis from > Blastwave about this. When I get it resolved, I'll install gcc 4.4.3 on 't2' > without the need for LD_LIBRARY_PATH to be set. > > Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
