This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Patching autoconf to support static binutils?
On 08/24/11 10:13, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:33:28 Bryan Ischo wrote:
On 08/24/11 09:03, Mike Frysinger wrote:
that's what "free" gets you
Additionally, it is disappointing that you put more effort
into writing this paragraph than to your response below ...
If you'll read my original email you'll note that the above doesn't work
because LDFLAGS is passed to gcc by some of the binutils Makefiles and
gcc doesn't like the -all-static option.
i tested this sequence and it seemed to work just fine for me. gcc
generally shouldnt be invoked directly by the makefiles ... the compiles
should all be going through libtool. and they do on my system.
OK I will try again and take a harder look at why it is failing for me.
I apologize for any perceived impatience on my part in this exchange and
I appreciate your taking the time to test the scenario and report your
OK I tried again; with your instructions, there are no errors reported,
but then again, the LDFLAGS argument is ignored and the result is not a
static build of binutils as desired.
Can you please check whether your test build actually produced
statically linked binaries?
As far as I can tell, forcing the static build requires setting
LIBTOOLFLAGS to -all-static, but this causes the errors that I mentioned
in my previous email, because LIBTOOLFLAGS is passed to libtool for all
invocations regardless of the mode, and libtool with -mode=compile does
not accept -all-static.
With no other feedback on my proposal, I guess I'll have to do what I
think is best and hope that the binutil maintainers agree with my idea.
I will split LIBTOOLFLAGS into separate LIBTOOLFLAGS for each libtool
mode (i.e. LIBTOOLFLAGS_COMPILE, LIBTOOLFLAGS_LINK, etc), passing the
appropriate one for each invocation of libtool, and also making each one
include a reference to LIBTOOLFLAGS so that the change is backwards