This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Patch: Re: bug in ld -rpath ??
- To: hjl at lucon dot org
- Subject: Re: Patch: Re: bug in ld -rpath ??
- From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at wins dot uva dot nl>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:55:47 +0200
- CC: nickc at redhat dot com, brownb at jany dot gs dot com, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <200008212240.PAA23688@elmo.cygnus.com> <20000821215837.A6926@lucon.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:58:37 -0700
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
Cc: kettenis@wins.uva.nl, brownb@jany.gs.com, binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 03:40:55PM -0700, Nick Clifton wrote:
>
> * Add code to the ..._after_open() function to display the searches
> (both successful and failed) for needed libraries when the
> -verbose switch is used. (Searches for libraries specified on
> the command line are shown with this option, and I believe that
> it would be helpful to have the needed library searches shown as
> well).
The current ld will complain if it cannot find the needed library. I
added some code to do
found the needed DSO libused_by_a.so at /home/hjl/bugs/gas/rpath/a/../u/libused_by_a.so
found the DSO libused_by_a.so needed by a/liba.so
with -verbose. I output 2 lines since there is no easy way to get all
information in one place. Is that ok?
I find those two message pretty incomprehensible, especially if it is
possible that they do not immediately follow eachother. I think it
would be better if the order was reversed, i.e.
libused_by_a.so needed by a/liba.so
found libused_by_a.so at /home/hjl/bugs/gas/rpath/a/../u/libused_by_a.so
I don't think using DSO in the message is a good thing except when
this term is used consistently all over binutils. It may confuse
people who haven't seen the abbreviation before, and I don't think it
adds any useful information, especially when the library names in .so
anyway.
I think it would be a good idea to mention how the DSO was found
(i.e. -rpath, -rpath-link, DT_RPATH, LD_RUN_PATH, standard search
directories) like the GNU ld.so does. That would be a big help in
resolving problems with conflicting search dirs. I don't know if this
is easy to implement though.
Mark