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: Problems with using libtool dependencies in opcodes


On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 12:07:30PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 02:54:39PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 11:24:32AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > 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?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I have been using this patch.
> > 
> > You'll find that your patch solves the first problem (the one also
> > solved by upgrading libtool), but not the second problem that I
> > described above.
> > 
> 
> I don't have any problems with cross compilers. Maybe it is because
> I am using "-L../bfd -lbfd".

Hmm.  We tested your patch and had the same problem I described above,
not long ago, so I suspect it is just some difference in our setups.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


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