Re: [PATCHv3 3/6] gcc: Statically link in support libraries e.g. libmpfr libgmp etc.

[Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>]

On 03/14/2011 12:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 09:50 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>> 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
>>>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>   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.
>
> They are used and shipped. As evidence I submit:
>
> http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/nightly/20110311-1/toolchain/x86_64/poky-lsb-eglibc-x86_64-i586-toolchain-gmae-0.9+snapshot-20110313.tar.bz2

Is 
/opt/poky-lsb/0.9+snapshot/sysroots/x86_64-pokysdk-linux/usr/bin/i586-poky-linux/i586-poky-linux-gcc 
the runs on host targets the target cross compiler the user should use 
now?  If so, you don't have relocation as the RPATH is hard-coded not 
$ORIGIN based.  If not, can I have a pointer to the right gcc to poke 
at?  Thanks :)

-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation