This is the mail archive of the
elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: make the shared library optional
- From: Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>
- To: elfutils-devel at lists dot fedorahosted dot org
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:16:10 +0100
- Subject: Re: make the shared library optional
On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 14:45 +0000, Vicente Olivert Riera wrote:
> I'm having a failure when doing a static build of elfutils because it
> tries to build a shared library (.so). Could it be possible to add a
> configure option to disable the shared library so only the static one
> (.a) would be built?
>
> This is the failure I'm talking about:
>
> /home/chroot/media/code/buildroot/autobuilder/instance-0/output/host/opt/ext-toolchain/bin/../lib/gcc/mipsel-buildroot-linux-uclibc/4.8.3/../../../../mipsel-buildroot-linux-uclibc/bin/ld:
> /home/chroot/media/code/buildroot/autobuilder/instance-0/output/host/opt/ext-toolchain/bin/../lib/gcc/mipsel-buildroot-linux-uclibc/4.8.3/crtbeginT.o:
> relocation R_MIPS_HI16 against `a local symbol' can not be used when
> making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
> /home/chroot/media/code/buildroot/autobuilder/instance-0/output/host/opt/ext-toolchain/bin/../lib/gcc/mipsel-buildroot-linux-uclibc/4.8.3/crtbeginT.o:
> could not read symbols: Bad value
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> Makefile:939: recipe for target 'libelf.so' failed
> make[3]: *** [libelf.so] Error 1
Does that failure also happen with a normal (not patched) build?
It looks like the issue is with the crtbeginT.o code, not with any of
the elfutils objects? I don't immediately know why that particular
object is linked into the shared library. Does the toolchain pick up the
correct version?
> The full build log is here:
>
> http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/16f/16f6956d5a215fe678a45cc4b24ba196309ee05c/build-end.log
It looks like that is a fairly old 0.155 build with several patches
applied. Have you tried latest elfutils 0.160 or current git?
If you think any of those patches are useful could you submit them so we
can review them for inclusion upstream?
Thanks,
Mark