This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
$(build_tooldir)/lib (was Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-05/msg01104.html)
- To: Jim Wilson <wilson at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: $(build_tooldir)/lib (was Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-05/msg01104.html)
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: 21 Jul 2000 01:17:02 -0700
- Cc: aoliva at cygnus dot com, "H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <20000520093135A.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <orhfbt9nwh.fsf@tamanduatei.dcc.unicamp.br> <20000520095133R.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <20000520220957.A25977@valinux.com> <200005222255.PAA26407@wilson.cygnus.com>
To resurrect a thread from May...
Jim Wilson <wilson@cygnus.com> writes:
> The part of H.J.'s patch that I don't understand is why he adds a
> -B option pointing to a library directory: -B$(build_tooldir)/lib/.
> There are no executables there, so adding a -B option for that directory
> seems wrong and unnecessary.
Presumably because -B also adds to startfile_prefixes; the same
unlibsubdir problem that caused us to define build_tooldir for
executables would also affect the libraries and startfiles.
But then why don't we also need a -L$(build_tooldir)/lib?
Jason