Problems with using libtool dependencies in opcodes

Andreas Jaeger aj@suse.de
Sun Jan 4 13:50:00 GMT 2004


Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:

> [...]
>> What exactly from my message explaining the patch is not clear?
>> 
>> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-05/msg00424.html
>> 
>> libopcodes.so using functionality from libbfd.so and therefore we need
>> to add a DL_NEEDED reference in libopcodes.so to give:
>> $ ldd /usr/lib/libopcodes.so 
>>         libbfd-2.14.90.0.5.so => /usr/lib/libbfd-2.14.90.0.5.so (0x4002c000)
>>         libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/libc.so.6 (0x400c8000)
>>         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)
>
> That's precisely the reason I'm prepared to ignore.  I wanted to make
> sure that it didn't also cause a runtime failure in the binutils for
> some reason.

I'm not aware of another runtime failure.

> I am forced to consider build regressions more important than easily
> avoidable or harmless runtime problems and no one has demonstrated a
> fix for the libtool problem this patch uncovered.


Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20040104/1350a4e4/attachment.sig>


More information about the Binutils mailing list