Re: Fix -static with -lpthread

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20100627211524.GA12852%netbsd.org@localhost>,
David Holland  <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:06:16PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > > > ...why not just reference it from crt0?
> > > > 
> > > > Because it is an implementation detail of libc.
> > > 
> > > It's not like crt0 and libc are really independent, and it would be a
> > > lot less gross that way...
> > 
> > They are mostly independent. crt0 has to pull in exit(3) from libc to be
> > standard compliant and there is no real way to avoid that. 
>
>Well yes, so what's the problem?
>
> > I see no good justification for adding other requirements on the
> > interface just for the sake of static linkage.
>
>I see no good justification for attaching a mess to that requirement
>to avoid making it slightly wider.
>
>I suppose the proper solution is to make ld smarter.

Yes, but until that happens keeping the mess inside libc is probably
better than messing up crt0.

christos