This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com 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] |
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
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |