Jeffrey A Law law@hurl.cygnus.com
Sun Jan 31 23:58:00 GMT 1999

  In message < 13989.52523.298092.823253@sls5gj.stgl.sel.alcatel.de >you write:
  > On nil, 20 January 1999, 10:16:36, oliva@dcc.unicamp.br wrote:
  >  > On Jan 20, 1999, Manfred Hollstein <manfred@s-direktnet.de> wrote:
  >  > 
  >  > >> So I came up with the following idea: if any -Bdir argument is given,
  >  > >> gcc would search for as and ld in those directories before trying to
  >  > >> use the hard-coded pathnames.
  >  > 
  >  > > IMO, that's a good idea. But, shouldn't we (the collect2 program)
  >  > > then treat "nm", "strip" (probably other programs) in a similar fashio
  > n?
  >  > 
  >  > Don't we?  I mean, do we currently hardcode the full pathnames of nm
  >  > and strip in collect2?
  > Oops, I just looked at the code in collect2.c.  Both programs (like "ldd"
  > and others, too) are looked for using an extended search mechanism.  If
  > "gcc" knows where its ${libsubdir} is, what its ${target_alias} is, it'll
  > pass some environment variables to collect2 initialized from those values.
  > Hence, it should work with "nm" and "strip", too.
  > Forget about my complaint.
It's still a valid complaint in the sense that we want to be able to move the
whole toolchain and have collect2 do the right thing automatically.  That's
the  follow-on patch once we get $tooldir sorted out.  :-)  But we can't really
go anywhere until $tooldir is fixed.


More information about the Gcc mailing list