From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PzB0c-0006hK-81 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:52:42 +0100 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1PzAyy-0004XD-Vw from Tom_Rini@mentor.com for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:51:01 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:50:21 -0700 Received: from [172.30.80.14] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05 (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:50:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4D7E473E.6010800@mentor.com> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:50:06 -0700 From: Tom Rini Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <1299135167-18330-1-git-send-email-raj.khem@gmail.com> <1299135167-18330-4-git-send-email-raj.khem@gmail.com> <1299610396.602.104.camel@rex> <1299934200.1445.3023.camel@rex> In-Reply-To: <1299934200.1445.3023.camel@rex> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2011 16:50:21.0837 (UTC) FILETIME=[E860FBD0:01CBE267] Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 3/6] gcc: Statically link in support libraries e.g. libmpfr libgmp etc. X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:52:42 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/12/2011 05:50 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 11:04 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Richard Purdie >> wrote: >>> On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 22:38 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >>>> ping any opinion on this patch ? >>> >>> This change looks rather hacky and I'd really like to understand more >>> about why this is needed and whether there is a better way we could >>> ensure the right flags get passed around. Can you provide more details >>> about whats going on with this. Obviously this change as it stands isn't >>> acceptable to upstream gcc and I'd like to see if we could find one that >>> was. >> >> this is because the supporting libraries like mpc mpfr that are needed >> by gcc itself to run >> we might have different versions of these libraries. So depending upon >> shared objects >> would mean we need to find same shared objects where say the SDK is installed >> so either we ship the whole baggage or we link it in statically. This >> patch makes those libs to >> linked in statically and cross gcc wont have dependencies on these >> libs anymore so >> it can run on all hosts pretty much. > > If you look at the way the SDK toolchain works in Poky, it automatically > ships the versions of these libraries that it needs so we don't actually > have this problem. > > Also, looking at the patch again, was the first LDFLAGS change meant to > be in there, is that related or different to the shared/static > mpfr/mpc/gmp issue? I think it's time for someone to build one at dig at it, but are you sure they're used and shipped and not just used? That was a problem before and unless the exported bits are using a relative $ORIGIN in the link path (or we've broken relocatability, which would be another problem) there's problems today. -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation