This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Linking shared libopcodes against libbfd
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: Adrian Schroeter <adrian at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:40:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: Linking shared libopcodes against libbfd
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org><20030515010705.GL957@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
Alan Modra <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:43:03PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> * Makefile.am (libopcodes_la_LIBADD): Add libbfd.la.
>> (libopcodes_la_DEPENDENCIES): Add libbfd.la.
>> * Makefile.in: Regenerated.
> This is OK, as long as libopcodes.a doesn't include libbfd.a (I'm not
> familiar enough with libtool to know).
This will not happen, libtool handles this correctly.
Now we need to add a dependency on an installed bfd, otherwise
libopcodes might get relinked against the previously installed libbfd
instead of the newly installed libbfd during make install :-(.
Ok to commit the appended patch from Andreas Schwab together with the
previous one (to both SRC and GCC repositories)?
2003-05-15 Andreas Schwab <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* Makefile.tpl (install-opcodes): Define.
* Makefile.in: Rebuild.
@@ -1334,6 +1334,8 @@
# binutils might be on PATH, and they might need the shared opcodes
+# libopcodes depends on libbfd
all-gas: maybe-all-libiberty maybe-all-opcodes maybe-all-bfd maybe-all-intl
all-gprof: maybe-all-libiberty maybe-all-bfd maybe-all-opcodes maybe-all-intl
all-ld: maybe-all-libiberty maybe-all-bfd maybe-all-opcodes maybe-all-bison maybe-all-byacc maybe-all-flex maybe-all-intl
SuSE Labs email@example.com