This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Problems with using libtool dependencies in opcodes
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, aj at suse dot de
- Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:05:27 -0500
- Subject: Re: Problems with using libtool dependencies in opcodes
- References: <20031222182104.GA9036@nevyn.them.org>
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.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer