This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Problems with using libtool dependencies in opcodes
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 11:24:32AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 01:21:04PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > This problem:
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-06/msg00025.html
> > is still present, and it's causing me a real headache.
> >
> > I had hopes that the latest version of libtool would fix it, so I did a
> > hack-job to get all of binutils using the new version and tried again. What
> > we used to get was a command like this (roughly):
> >
> > gcc -shared .libs/dis-buf.o .libs/disassemble.o .libs/dis-init.o \
> > .libs/i386-dis.o -L/opt/src/binutils/inst-tmp/obj/libiberty/pic \
> > -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib -lbfd \
> > -Wl,-soname -Wl,libopcodes-2.14.90.so -o .libs/libopcodes-2.14.90.so
> >
> >
> > Now we get:
> >
> > gcc -shared .libs/dis-buf.o .libs/disassemble.o .libs/dis-init.o \
> > .libs/i386-dis.o -L/opt/src/binutils/inst-tmp/obj/libiberty/pic \
> > -L/opt/src/binutils/inst-tmp/inst/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib -lbfd \
> > -Wl,-soname -Wl,libopcodes-2.14.90.so -o .libs/libopcodes-2.14.90.so
> >
> > That fixes the immediate problem but opens up a whole new can of worms. By
> > adding -L$libdir to the path, my cross compiler configuration starts trying
> > to open /usr/lib/libc.so, which points it to /lib/libc.so.6.
> >
> > This means that the patch to fix opcodes' listed dependencies (which is a
> > legitimate problem, but AFAIK only causes real-world problems with
> > prelinking) has caused all sorts of build regressions. I think that the
> > cure is worse than the problem.
> >
> > Does anyone have any bright ideas for making libtool behave? If not how do
> > you feel about reverting:
> >
> > 2003-05-17 Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>
> >
> > * Makefile.am (libopcodes_la_LIBADD): Add libbfd.la.
> > (libopcodes_la_DEPENDENCIES): Add libbfd.la.
> > * Makefile.in: Regenerated.
> >
> > until someone comes up with a bright idea? Am I forgetting another problem
> > this patch solved?
> >
>
> I have been using this patch.
You'll find that your patch solves the first problem (the one also
solved by upgrading libtool), but not the second problem that I
described above.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer