[bug-notifications] [gcc4g++ 0004875]: GCC 4.6.2 C++ : dynamic link issue

[Mantis Bug Tracker]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://www.opencsw.org/mantis/view.php?id=4875 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                pfelecan
Assigned To:                maciej
====================================================================== 
Project:                    gcc4g++
Issue ID:                   4875
Category:                   regular use
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   block
Priority:                   high
Status:                     assigned
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2011-12-03 09:26 CET
Last Modified:              2011-12-12 11:28 CET
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    GCC 4.6.2 C++ : dynamic link  issue
Description: 
The minimal program:

int main() {}

compiles, links (g++ -o c c.cc) but doesn't run; the following error
message is reported:

        ld.so.1: c: fatal: libstdc++.so.6: open failed: No such file or
        directory

and ldd reports:
	libstdc++.so.6 =>	 (file not found)
	libm.so.2 =>	 /lib/libm.so.2
	libgcc_s.so.1 =>	 (file not found)
	libc.so.1 =>	 /lib/libc.so.1

$ type g++
g++ is /opt/csw/bin/g++

$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 4.6.2
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0009476) pfelecan (developer) - 2011-12-12 11:28
 https://www.opencsw.org/mantis/view.php?id=4875#c9476 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
There are at least 3 solutions for this issue:

1. use crle (I don't favor this; a postinstall script of gcc3core can do
this

2. use a specs file supplied with the gcc4core package, similar to what I
documented in an previous note (this is the easiest)

3. change the definition of the relevant values as documented in the gcc
internals info file and for which I published the references on the
maintainers list (this is the most elegant); BTW, I thought that you have
done something approaching in the "straightforward patch".