This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Is anyone testing for a (cross-) target (board) with dynlinking?
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- To: iant at google dot com
- Cc: hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com, froydnj at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:47:59 +0100
- Subject: Re: Is anyone testing for a (cross-) target (board) with dynlinking?
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <email@example.com>
> 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 libgcc_s.so.1; 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.