This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: PATCH: Use libgcj_convenience.la ( Re: libjava bootstrap failure on sparc-sun-solaris2.8)
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>, automake at gnu dot org
- Cc: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 08 Jun 2002 14:06:12 -0300
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Use libgcj_convenience.la ( Re: libjava bootstrap failure on sparc-sun-solaris2.8)
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0206070712500.14352-100000@dair.pair.com>
[CC:ing automake mailing list]
On Jun 7, 2002, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> What -static doesn't mean to libtool is to reject any kind of dynamic
>> linking. -all-static does that [...]
> But -all-static isn't a valid gcc option. When in a tree such
> as the binutils+gcc+whatnot, it's nice to be able to pass
> "CC=gcc -static" in the toplevel at configure time, and know
> that everything is statically linked. (And no, that doesn't
> work with unpatched libtool.) Passing "CC=gcc -all-static"
> would work if every subdirectory used libtool everywhere, but
> just plain where they don't.
I agree the non-standard meaning of -static in libtool is unfortunate,
but IIRC I inherited it that way, and never had the courage to change
it :-)
A way I thought to alleviate this problem would be to get automake to
support say LT_LDFLAGS, such that to make sure you get only
statically-linked binaries, you could use `CC=gcc -static' and
`LT_LDFLAGS=-all-static'. Automakers, what do you think? Should I
file a PR with this suggestion?
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer