making gcc relocatable->fixed

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 26 June 2006 09:09, NZG wrote:
> > no, you moved the wrong libs
>
> You mean when I built it shared I did? Why is this?
> The target libs move with the toolchain because their sysrooted into the
> exec_path.
> Shouldn't the shared libs for the host move with the toolchain just because
> their in the prefix?
> Is there a way I can fix this from the configure path?

you're confusing the libs

the shared libs that are part of binutils are used by the host to generate 
code for the target, they are not for use by the target at runtime

> > binutils' shared libs are in host format, not target format ... so they
> > need to be in either the RPATH or in ld.so.conf path or $LD_LIBRARY_PATH
>
> I need to be able to move the toolchain around and avoid a root install, 
> so a static path in a root permission folder(or anywhere else for that
> matter) is not acceptable.

ok ?  i just told you how to make it work ... make sure ld.so can find them at 
runtime and it doesnt matter where they are

> Is compiling non-shared my best option? Do I really gain anything from
> compiling shared if only this toolchain uses them?

*shrug* same sort of benefit you get from using shared libs versus static 
libs ... each binary is smaller, the shared libs are shared at runtime thus 
using less memory, etc...

> I've seen some posts saying that shared libs in binutils are not well
> tested and I notice crosstool doesn't use them.

shared libs are pretty well tested ... we've always used them in Gentoo and i 
have yet to see a bug that was caused by shared libs
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/crossgcc/attachments/20060626/0eb1b4a1/attachment.sig>