sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
[SM-Grimoire] Re: Small question: why binutils installs static libs only?
- From: julian AT openit.de (Julian v. Bock)
- To: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT optimaltec.com>
- Cc: Grimoire <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: [SM-Grimoire] Re: Small question: why binutils installs static libs only?
- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 22:04:31 +0200
Hi
>>>>> "SAL" == Sergey A Lipnevich <sergey AT optimaltec.com> writes:
SAL> Hi Julian! Is there any reason why binutils only produces static
SAL> libraries (installed in /usr/lib) and not dynamic?
It is the default.
SAL> If the only
SAL> reason is "by default", should we switch to dynamic libraries?
This might cause problems on binutils updates since the libbfd and
especially libiberty (which is required by libbfd) interfaces change
quite often.
SAL> This is a side question of trying to
SAL> cast mono-debugger which doesn't like our BFD library (libbfd).
How does a shared bfd library make things better?
SAL> I
SAL> have to figure that one out anyway... If anyone's interested, it
SAL> spews lots of undefined references, and based on observation that
SAL> they aim at binutils 2.12 and gcc 2.9x, I think ./configure has
SAL> to be patched.
There were a few incompatible changes between 2.12 and 2.13 (ran into
this myself with one of my projects). What makes things worse is that
gcc installs its own libiberty which is often (read: currently) not
compatible with the current bfd library since the binutils and gcc
releases include different libiberty snapshots.
Julian
>From dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net Mon Apr 7 16:06:24 2003
Return-Path: <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
Delivered-To: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail.dufflebunk.homeip.net (d57-98-11.home.cgocable.net
[24.57.98.11])
by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F122012B
for <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:06:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1])
by mail.dufflebunk.homeip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id BD307A269; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:00:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] Small question: why binutils installs
static libs only?
From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
To: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT optimaltec.com>
In-Reply-To: <3E91CACE.2090709 AT optimaltec.com>
References: <3E91A488.9090807 AT optimaltec.com>
<1049735873.7210.232.camel AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
<3E91CACE.2090709 AT optimaltec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="=-ATaq/tfmgKGbR6R7JYvX"
Organization:
Message-Id: <1049745612.7209.273.camel AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2
Date: 07 Apr 2003 16:00:13 -0400
cc: Grimoire <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
X-BeenThere: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
<sm-grimoire.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire>,
<mailto:sm-grimoire-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/sm-grimoire>
List-Post: <mailto:sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire>,
<mailto:sm-grimoire-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 20:06:24 -0000
--=-ATaq/tfmgKGbR6R7JYvX
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
oops! I get odd results on that:
$ file `gaze install binutils | grep /usr/lib`=20
/usr/lib/libbfd.a: current ar archive
/usr/lib/libbfd.la: ASCII English text
/usr/lib/libiberty.a: current ar archive
/usr/lib/libopcodes.a: current ar archive
/usr/lib/libopcodes.la: ASCII English text
On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 15:00, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> I'm talking about libraries:
> # gaze install binutils|grep /usr/lib
> /usr/lib/libbfd.a
> /usr/lib/libbfd.la
> /usr/lib/libiberty.a
> /usr/lib/libopcodes.a
> /usr/lib/libopcodes.la
>=20
>=20
> Dufflebunk wrote:
> > They are (see dump at bottom). Interestingly enough though, none are
> > stripped for me, but I'm pretty sure I've always had the strip option
> > on.
> >=20
> >=20
> > $ file `gaze install binutils | grep '^/usr/bin'`
> > /usr/bin/addr2line: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/ar: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/as: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/c++filt: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/gprof: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/ld: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/nm: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/objcopy: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/objdump: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/ranlib: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/readelf: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/size: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/strings: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> > /usr/bin/strip: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (=
SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stri=
pped
> >=20
> > On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 12:17, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> > =20
> > > Hi Julian!
> > >=20
> > > Is there any reason why binutils only produces static libraries=20
> > > (installed in /usr/lib) and not dynamic? If the only reason is "by=20
> > > default", should we switch to dynamic libraries? I could do that if y=
ou=20
> > > agree.
> > > This is a side question of trying to cast mono-debugger which doesn't=
=20
> > > like our BFD library (libbfd). I have to figure that one out anyway..=
.=20
> > > If anyone's interested, it spews lots of undefined references, and ba=
sed=20
> > > on observation that they aim at binutils 2.12 and gcc 2.9x, I think=20
> > > ./configure has to be patched.
> > > Thank you!
> > >=20
> > > Sergey.
> > >=20
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > SM-Grimoire mailing list
> > > SM-Grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire
> > > =20
> >=20
> > =20
--=20
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.=20
-----------------
PGP public key at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=3Dget&search=
=3D0x3327A9A5
F1
--=-ATaq/tfmgKGbR6R7JYvX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQA+kdjM1iFjljMnqaURAqy+AJ9fqTIDLXtAAQcQXYkvPTH1kGHwsgCfZalt
qaByOdSCyFWDg7RQ/OxXIlk=
=n8iv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-ATaq/tfmgKGbR6R7JYvX--
-
[SM-Grimoire] Small question: why binutils installs static libs only?,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 04/07/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Small question: why binutils installs static libs only?,
Dufflebunk, 04/07/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Small question: why binutils installs static libs only?, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 04/07/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Small question: why binutils installs static libs only?, Julian v. Bock, 04/07/2003
- [SM-Grimoire] Re: Small question: why binutils installs static libs only?, Julian v. Bock, 04/07/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Small question: why binutils installs static libs only?,
Dufflebunk, 04/07/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.