[gccsdk] Packaging compiler - was Autobuilder libraries

John Tytgat John.Tytgat at aaug.net
Sun Jan 6 09:58:25 PST 2008

In message <be2bff5c4f.peter at chocky.org>
          Peter Naulls <peter at chocky.org> wrote:

> 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.

In those cases shared libgcc and libunixlib libraries are used, aren't
they ?

> 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.

Nevertheless I think that's the right approach.

John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home                                 BASS
John.Tytgat at aaug.net                             ARM powered, RISC OS driven

More information about the gcc mailing list