[gccsdk] Packaging compiler - was Autobuilder libraries

Peter Naulls peter at chocky.org
Sun Jan 6 08:40:31 PST 2008

In message <477EB9A0.3050401 at chocky.org>
          Peter Naulls <peter at chocky.org> wrote:

> John Tytgat wrote:
> > I agree that static linking is the best choice to make for packaging
> > GCCSDK 4.1 compiled binaries right now.  But put those in 'testing' state.
> > And it would indeed also be best to use elf2aif on those binaries which
> > will give you an Absolute binary not requiring any ELF loader at runtime.
> I will add this to the autobuilder; I still have a number of other broad
> changes I'll be making, such as some sanity checking during archive
> creation.

A slight issue here.  Any otherwise "static" binary - that is, doesn't
explictly link in any shared libraries still contains references to
ld-riscos/so/1, and elf2aif won't deal with it.   I don't know if it can
be updated to deal with this case.

The alternative is to try and have the porting tools ensure -static at
link time for binaries.  This will work much of the time (autoconf et
al), but is likely to be imperfect due to other various build methods.

Peter Naulls - peter at chocky.org        | http://www.chocky.org/
RISC OS Community Wiki - add your own content   | http://www.riscos.info/

More information about the gcc mailing list