On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 12:06 -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > libgcc_s is not marked as executable and hence it doesn't get stripped. This
> > means its about 1MB larger than it needs to be. There is no good reason it
> > shouldn't get stripped so ensure it does and mark as executable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.7.bb
> > b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.7.bb
> > index 47669a2..6a0931f 100644
> > --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.7.bb
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.7.bb
> > @@ -57,6 +57,9 @@ do_install () {
> > # install the runtime in /usr/lib/ not in /usr/lib/gcc on target
> > # so that cross-gcc can find it in the sysroot
> >
> > + # Ensure libs are executable else they aren't stripped
> > + chmod a+x ${D}/${base_libdir}/*
> > +
>
> hmmm, while this solves the issue I think better fix would for
> stripper to know that its a shared object
> and can be stripped. Marking libraries with exe (except ld.so which
> can execute on its own) seems not
> right to me.
Agreed, I've pushed something which addresses the root cause in
package.bbclass.
Cheers,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
