Patching autoconf to support static binutils?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 01:09:17 Bryan Ischo wrote:
> On 8/23/2011 8:25 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 18:32:00 Bryan Ischo wrote:
> >> On 08/22/11 14:40, Bryan Ischo wrote:
> >>> Hello.  I am trying to figure out how to build a statically linked
> >>> version of binutils (starting with binutils source version 2.21.1).  I
> >>> have found some old discussions of this topic via search results, but
> >>> there was never any real resolution to this issue as far as I can tell.
> >> 
> >> Hello out there ... is anyone steering this ship????
> > 
> > wow, 24 hours w/out a response and you're already getting punchy ?  this
> > is open source which means you get to figure things out yourself if you
> > cant find help.  not bug people even more for their free assistance.
> 
> It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and I don't think your response is
> warranted.

might want to try a bit harder then in properly expressing yourself

> Additionally, it is disappointing that you put more effort
> into writing this paragraph than to your response below ...

that's what "free" gets you

> > ./configure
> > make configure-host
> > make LDFLAGS=-all-static
> 
> If you'll read my original email you'll note that the above doesn't work
> because LDFLAGS is passed to gcc by some of the binutils Makefiles and
> gcc doesn't like the -all-static option.

i tested this sequence and it seemed to work just fine for me.  gcc generally 
shouldnt be invoked directly by the makefiles ... the compiles should all be 
going through libtool.  and they do on my system.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20110824/08e6561a/attachment.sig>