This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 1/8] Add --with-system-zlib in bfd


On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2015 09:56, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On 31 Mar 2015 03:10, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> > On 26 Mar 2015 08:57, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> >> --- a/bfd/configure.ac
>> >> >> +++ b/bfd/configure.ac
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -# Link in zlib if we can.  This allows us to read compressed debug sections.
>> >> >> -# This is used only by compress.c.
>> >> >> -AM_ZLIB
>> >> >> +# Use the system's zlib library.
>> >> >> +zlibdir=-L../zlib
>> >> >> +zlibinc="-I\$(srcdir)/../zlib"
>> >> >> +AC_ARG_WITH(system-zlib,
>> >> >> +[AS_HELP_STRING([--with-system-zlib], [use installed libz])],
>> >> >> +zlibdir=
>> >> >> +zlibinc=
>> >> >> +)
>> >> >
>> >> > this is wrong.  the 3rd arg is whether the option was specified, not that the
>> >> > option was disabled.  you need to check $withval is equal to "no" (or not equal
>> >> > to "yes").
>> >>
>> >> That is what gcc/configure.ac has and it works for me.
>> >
>> > then gcc/configure.ac is also broken.  whether "it works for me" is
>> > irrelevant -- simply read the code and you'll see it's wrong.  if you
>> > pass --without-system-zlib the code wrongly behaves as if you passed
>> > --with-system-zlib.
>> >
>> > i mention this because it is breaking my test builds.  not that that
>> > really matters -- the code is clearly incorrect.
>>
>> We should fix zlib.m4 and use it in gcc/configure.ac.
>
> sure; i await your patches ;).  i'm not trying to point fingers here for
> pointing's sake -- binutils & gdb were working before and now they're broken,
> and they broke due to the zlib patches you merged.  so i think it's reasonable
> to expect you to drive further fixes (probably across gcc) even though the bug
> has existed in gcc for sometime.

Sure.  I have put it in my queue.

Sorry for the inconvenience.


-- 
H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]