On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 09:57:28PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> If we decide that for some odd reason we can't live without a hack, we
> should put the hack in the place where we need it: when doing a
> one-tree build with both ld and gcc, ideally only when using
> --enable-shared. Note th
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 09:57:28PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>
> That is, if you are using a Cygnus style top level Makefile, add a
> rule like this to all-gcc:
> # When configured with --enable-shared, libtool 1.3.4 creates
> # a script in the build directory which automatica
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 07:46:05PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2000, "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1. The new gcc calls collect2.
> > 2. collect2 calls ld/ld-new.
> > 3. ld/ld-new uses the new gcc to relink the new ld.
>
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 03:33:15PM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 07:46:05PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 2000, "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 1. The new gcc calls collect2.
> > > 2. collect2
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 11:58:15AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:50:59 -0800
>From: "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I know this patch doesn't look very clean. But I don't know automake
>well enough to make i
It is very stupid for libtool.m4 to break other Linux platforms just
because Linux/ARM is different. Here is a patch for Linux/mips.
However, the correct fix should be
case $host_cpu in
arm*)
# Handle ARM differently.
;;
*)
lt_cv_d
Here is a patch for binutils to fix linking against an archive when
building a shared library. It is complete bogus to put
dependency_libs='-L. -lfoo"
in *.la for libfoo.a when building a shared library. I checked out
libtool from CVS. But libtool.m4 is very different from the one
in binutil
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 03:47:17PM -0500, Robert Boehne wrote:
> Why don't you send us the correct fix?
>
> "H . J . Lu" wrote:
> >
> > It is very stupid for libtool.m4 to break other Linux platforms just
> > because Linux/ARM is different. Here i
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:24:42AM -0500, Robert Boehne wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here is the patch reworked for HEAD. If noone objects
> I'll commit it.
>
> ChangeLog Entry:
>
> 2001-10-23 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * ltmain.sh: Allow link against an archive when building a
>
Does libtool really support cross compile? Libtool should never, ever set
sys_lib_search_path_spec="/lib /usr/lib /usr/local/lib"
when generating binaries for the cross target. The current libtool in gcc
3.x does it wrong. I am enclosing a patch for ltconfig here. I don't know
how to fix libtool
lucky in gcc so far since
there is no libfoo.la in /lib, /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib yet.
H.J.
> Es schrieb "H . J . Lu":
> >
> > Does libtool really support cross compile? Libtool should never, ever set
> >
> > sys_lib_search_path_spec="/lib /usr/
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 09:18:35PM +0100, Guido Draheim wrote:
>
> Hmm, I just checked the sources of libtool - and it seems you are
> absolutly correct - there is nothing that will try to detect crosscompiling
> automatically and kill the native's libpath, possibly filling it with the
> one bei
This is a patch for libtool to support Linux/mips. Unlike Linux/i386,
we get
# file /lib/libc-2.2.4.so
/lib/libc-2.2.4.so: ELF 32-bit LSB mips-1 shared object, MIPS R3000_LE [bfd bug],
version 1, not stripped
on Linux/mips. This patch tries to support Linux/mips. Also we don't
need to set lt_cv
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 09:52:04AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2002, "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * libtool.m4 (lt_cv_deplibs_check_method): Support Linux/mips.
>
> Before I waste any further time on it, is it any differen
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 03:10:07AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2002, "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 09:52:04AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Feb 4, 2002, "H . J . Lu" <[E
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 04:27:15AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2002, "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Please read my original message again.
>
> Please read my original reply again.
>
> > # gcc -fPIC -c foo.c
> >
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 05:34:55AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2002, "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > # gcc -fPIC -c foo.c
> > # ar rcs libfoo.a foo.o
> > # gcc -fPIC -c bar.c
> > # gcc -shared -o libar.so bar.o -lfoo -L.
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:57:57AM -0600, Robert Boehne wrote:
> Alexandre:
>
> You have my approval to un-do my mistsake. If I had understood
> exactly what this patch was doing then I would have rejected it myself.
> H.J. As I now understand it, your patch doesn't improve anything,
> it just b
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 05:55:27PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2002, "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, there is no libiberty.so. You wind up with always linking files
> > in libiberty.a when libtool is used, no matter they are n
Libtool has been driving me nuts. I tried to cross compile a package which
uses libtool. For some reason, libtool wanted libgdbm.so from /usr/lib:
/bin/sh ../libtool --mode=link mipsel-linux-gcc -Wall -W -O2 -mips2 -fPIC -o
libsasl.la -rpath /usr/lib -version-info 8:8:1 common.lo saslutil.lo s
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 09:40:23AM +0800, Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:
>
> Libtool is a software developed by volunteers. Saying that libtool is
> "brain dead" is extremely rude and shows little respect to the people who
> contribute their time for the benefit of others. Do you believe, that they
> wi
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 01:51:34PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> The newly built libgcc_s.so.1 may not be used for "make check". It
> leads to 2 problems:
>
> 1. The newly built libgcc_s.so.1 may be fully tested by "make check".
> 2. Those tests which won
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 03:12:59PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 01:51:34PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > The newly built libgcc_s.so.1 may not be used for "make check". It
> > leads to 2 problems:
> >
> > 1. The newly built libgcc_s.so.1 may b
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:46:14AM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi H.J,
>
> On 7 Sep 2004, at 21:11, H. J. Lu wrote:
> >I don't understand why libtool
> >has to put the install directory in RPATH for comp
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 03:35:25PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 02:46:14AM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi H.J,
> >
> > On 7 Sep 2004, at 21:11, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > &g
25 matches
Mail list logo
