Re: Problems with using libtool dependencies in opcodes

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 01:21:04PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>> This problem:
>>   http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-06/msg00025.html
>> is still present, and it's causing me a real headache.
>> 
>> I had hopes that the latest version of libtool would fix it, so I did a
>> hack-job to get all of binutils using the new version and tried again.  What
>> we used to get was a command like this (roughly):
>> 
>> gcc -shared  .libs/dis-buf.o .libs/disassemble.o .libs/dis-init.o \
>>   .libs/i386-dis.o  -L/opt/src/binutils/inst-tmp/obj/libiberty/pic \
>>   -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib -lbfd \
>>   -Wl,-soname -Wl,libopcodes-2.14.90.so -o .libs/libopcodes-2.14.90.so
>> 
>> 
>> Now we get:
>> 
>> gcc -shared  .libs/dis-buf.o .libs/disassemble.o .libs/dis-init.o \
>>   .libs/i386-dis.o  -L/opt/src/binutils/inst-tmp/obj/libiberty/pic \
>>   -L/opt/src/binutils/inst-tmp/inst/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib -lbfd \
>>   -Wl,-soname -Wl,libopcodes-2.14.90.so -o .libs/libopcodes-2.14.90.so
>> 
>> That fixes the immediate problem but opens up a whole new can of worms.  By
>> adding -L$libdir to the path, my cross compiler configuration starts trying
>> to open /usr/lib/libc.so, which points it to /lib/libc.so.6.
>> 
>> This means that the patch to fix opcodes' listed dependencies (which is a
>> legitimate problem, but AFAIK only causes real-world problems with
>> prelinking) has caused all sorts of build regressions.  I think that the
>> cure is worse than the problem.
>> 
>> Does anyone have any bright ideas for making libtool behave?  If not how do
>> you feel about reverting:
>> 
>> 2003-05-17  Andreas Jaeger  <aj@suse.de>
>> 
>>         * Makefile.am (libopcodes_la_LIBADD): Add libbfd.la.
>>         (libopcodes_la_DEPENDENCIES): Add libbfd.la.
>>         * Makefile.in: Regenerated.
>> 
>> until someone comes up with a bright idea?  Am I forgetting another problem
>> this patch solved?
>
> Unless someone can give me a reason that this patch is necessary, I
> plan to revert it next week, with appropriate commentary.

What exactly from my message explaining the patch is not clear?

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-05/msg00424.html

libopcodes.so using functionality from libbfd.so and therefore we need
to add a DL_NEEDED reference in libopcodes.so to give:
$ ldd /usr/lib/libopcodes.so 
        libbfd-2.14.90.0.5.so => /usr/lib/libbfd-2.14.90.0.5.so (0x4002c000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/libc.so.6 (0x400c8000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)


Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature