This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] Fix --enable-plugins --without-python
- From: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- To: jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com
- Cc: brobecker at adacore dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:07:31 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [patch] Fix --enable-plugins --without-python
- References: <20101017104101.GA9276@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20101102184341.GF2492@adacore.com> <20101105015148.GA24699@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 15:51:49 -1000
> From: Jan Kratochvil <email@example.com>
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:43:41 -1000, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > Grumpf! It would be nice if BFD was telling us which libraries we need
> > to link against bfd, just as Gtk+, Python, etc, do.
> I agree we should port the sourceware tree to pkg-config. :-)
Oh dear god, no!
> > I'm a little concern that this is a bit primitive, and good enough only
> > on GNU/Linux or maybe Unix. Or rather, that this might break the build
> > on some platforms such as Windows. But that's not the case, since
> > the user would need to use --enable-plugins to enable plugins (it's
> > not automatic), so I don't see a better solution that's actually
> > worth the effort.
> bfd/Makefile.am also just adds `-ldl' (into *_LIBADD) so while I do not
> understand what everything is emulated on these non-UNIX platforms I guess it
> is either broken for --enable-plugins already even for bfd/ or it should work
> even in gdb/ .
Ugh, no, this is broken. On OpenBSD for example, there is no libdl, since
dlopen(3) and friends are available in libc.