From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:30:24 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2014-05-22 In-Reply-To: <53857DE2.6040509@mind.be> References: <20140523063008.8A64410106F@stock.ovh.net> <20140523190819.45a80027@free-electrons.com> <53857DE2.6040509@mind.be> Message-ID: <20140528063024.GA3510@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Arnout, All, On 2014-05-28 08:10 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly: > On 23/05/14 19:08, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > Dear Fabio Porcedda, > > > > On Fri, 23 May 2014 11:32:28 +0200, Fabio Porcedda wrote: > > > >>> powerpc | alsa-lib-1.0.26 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/520606ec674f6c8efad6ebbb840099ec89d03130/ > >>> x86_64 | audiofile-0.3.6 | NOK | http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/cc21623fbc3d4e94f09b2cb0be36ce05cf75a2e6/ > >> > >> It's related to BR2_PREFER_STATIC_LIB=y, I'm trying to fix it. > > > > Please note that Gustavo has already done a lot of investigation on > > this one. It boils done to the fact that we pass --static instead of > > -static when building statically. But we switched from -static to > > --static a while ago, for some reason that the commit doesn't make > > really clear. > > I remember that: libtool will parse the -static option and act accordingly. > Only, it interprets it differently than gcc: it will only link statically > against local libraries, not against installed libraries. If we don't have any > .so files in $(STAGING_DIR), that wouldn't be a problem because it would still > link statically (no other option). Ah, yes, *that* libtool magic... :-/ > But unfortunately there are still quite a few > packages that do install .so files in $(STAGING_DIR) - e.g. toolchain-external. > So without the --static, you end up with a lot of dynamically linked programs. So, what about a post-staging-install hook that would remove all .so files with BR2_STATIC_ONLY? (He!, a new name!) > For reference, the commit is 0a4bd19f4. > > As that commit mentions, we would actually like to pass -all-static to libtool. > But of course, that option is not known by gcc, so it won't work if libtool is > not used... What about passing both -static and --static? > A proper solution would be to adapt our libtool patches to interpret -static as > -all-static. Or alternatively, to patch the compiler wrapper to interpret > -all-static as -static (and then of course we'd have to generalize the compiler > wrapper to also use it for internal toolchains). Yes, I think this is a good idea. But we can't use the wrapper to build the toolchain itself, of course. Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'