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]

Re: PATCH: Ignore --disable-static in libiberty


On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 01:41:01PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> 
> On Dec 20, 2004, at 1:39 PM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 03:28:39PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >>On Dec 19, 2004, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>+# FIXME: libiberty doesn't support --disable-static
> >>>+enable_static=yes
> >>
> >>You shouldn't need this in general.  AM_DISABLE_SHARED should take
> >>care of implicitly enabling static, unless --disable-static is
> >>actually given in the command line.  If libiberty absolutely needs the
> >>static libiberty.a, then I can see why you'd want this (but I'd at
> >>least print a warning); otherwise, I'd just leave it alone, and if
> >>someone configures with --disable-static, they get what they asked
> >>for.
> >>
> >
> >Apparently, they do
> >
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19072
> >
> >and expect --disable-static to work.
> 
> Well it is more than just that, AIX was also broken even without
> --disable-static ...
> 

We were talking if libiberty needed

enable_static=yes

in configure.ac and NOTHING ELSE. It is unrelated to the AIX prolem.


H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]