Comment 17 for bug 1266492

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 04:12:53PM +0000, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16159
>
> --- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> ---
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, bugdal at aerifal dot cx wrote:
>
> > Carlos, this is yet another reason why dlopen'ing libgcc_s is simply the wrong
> > thing to do, and libgcc_eh should be static-linked into libc. (The other big
>
> Static-linking libgcc_eh into any glibc library is a bad idea because it
> complicates bootstrapping: it means glibc built with an initial bootstrap
> compiler (which was built without glibc headers available, implying full
> EH functionality is not present in libgcc) is not identical to glibc built
> with a compiler built using full shared glibc and headers. (It's *also* a
> bad idea because new compilers can start using new DWARF unwind opcodes
> that an old copy of the unwind code won't understand, causing problems
> using new programs with old glibc.)
>
Why did you jump from dlopening to static linking? Dynamic linking would
work and if there is concern that user does not have one we could
provide a stub implementation and function to test if we deal with stub
or real one.