This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
I have a quick crosstool question. The generated ${PREFIX}/${TARGET}/usr/lib/libc.so
file still has the absolute "/lib" prefixes in the GROUP line. I thought that
crosstool took care of making these relative.
I am looking at an email that you wrote here: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/crossgcc/2003-05/msg00097.html, which addresses this topic.
Bill Gatliff's page here http://billgatliff.com/~bgat/twiki/bin/view/Crossgcc/BuildGlibC references replacing the generated ${PREFIX}/${TARGET}/lib/libc.so file, but I thought that crosstool took care of this already. Am I doing something wrong here (i.e. should I be seeing crosstool change the libc.so file, such that it does not have the absolute /lib path)?
I see the logic in crosstool.sh where these absolute paths should be removed, but it is conditional on $USE_SYSROOT, which I am using. My libc.so in my generated sysroot has the absolute /lib path in it. Is there a reason that the sed logic in crosstool.sh is not used to clean up the /lib prefixes in libc.so when $USE_SYSROOT is set?
but I don't remember the issues. It could be that this never bothered me because I only use --with-sysroot on x86_64, and my development systems lack a /lib64, making any confusion harmless. What symptoms are you running into? - Dan
-- Trying to get a job as a c++ developer? See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html
------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |