[gccsdk] Packaging compiler - was Autobuilder libraries
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
> 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