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: > [...] >> 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) > > That's precisely the reason I'm prepared to ignore. I wanted to make > sure that it didn't also cause a runtime failure in the binutils for > some reason. I'm not aware of another runtime failure. > I am forced to consider build regressions more important than easily > avoidable or harmless runtime problems and no one has demonstrated a > fix for the libtool problem this patch uncovered. 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] |