This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Is anyone testing for a (cross-) target (board) with dynlinking?

> From: Ian Lance Taylor <>
> Date: 12 Feb 2008 07:48:51 -0800

Thanks to all.  I no longer think there's anything that needs
fixing in the gcc testsuite regarding copying of libraries or in
particular; I just need my baseboard-file to copy
over every *.so* from ld_library_path or make them otherwise
accessible.  It seems dejagnu deliberately leaves this to the
target, as it's not done for any other library either, and
ld_library_path is the blessed variable (no, not in the dejagnu
*documentation*; just used in the dejagnu sources with the same
use as in gcc. ;)

> Hans-Peter Nilsson <> writes:
> > Apparently tricks are needed as the -rpath is used both at
> > run-time and at link-time, ld complains about "No such file or
> > directory" if the path doesn't exist on the host side.
> -rpath-link is your friend here.

You mean a -rpath followed by -rpath-link (the latter overriding
for the link)?  That might do it.

> In the past I've just manually copied the libraries over to the target
> board, though.  I've used an NFS mount too, but since the target board
> is usually slow adding additional NFS lookups to every test is just
> more pain.

That might be interpreted as "NFS setups are slower" so to
disambiguate: people have reported NFS setups being
significantly faster (than copy-based protocols).  There's
reason: you wouldn't have to copy the whole program over for
each test, instead letting Linux page it in.  Copying just the
*libraries* would probably help of course.

brgds, H-P

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]