This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: compile failure due to undefined symbol
- From: "Peter S. Mazinger" <ps dot m at gmx dot net>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:06:14 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: compile failure due to undefined symbol
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> > Attached you'll find what I used
>
> I could not get that patch to work for me. (The inclusion of -lbfd-${VERSION}
> did not work because VERSION only expanded into -lbfd-2.18.50 and not
> -lbfd-2.18.50-20071002, and the definition of BFDLIB had only one back-tick not
> two).
tested only on 2.18, not a subversioned one
> But I was able to use it as the basis for a patch which did work. Would you
> like to try it out and see what you think ? (The patch is attached, but I have
> not included the regenerated files. I assume that you are OK to recreate them
> yourself). I chose to use -rpath rather than -rpath-link and then to
> explicitly link into the shared bfd library rather than using the library
> location mechanism as this appeared to do the right thing.
I assume you checked that using -rpath has really the correct
RPATH/RUNPATH in opcodes/.libs/libopcodes.so and in the finally installed
one in --libdir or whatever.
Wondering if SHARED_DEPENDENCIES should be bfd/libbfd.la, that is for sure
a target in the Makefiles and implies the creation of the needed
libbfd.so, meaning also that the bfd directory is "finalized", I am
sure about bfd/.libs/libbfd.so being a good target.
Will check your patch, thanks
Peter
--
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net> ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08 BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2