[Bug binutils/4334] MAKE FAILED: cpu-powerpc.o isn't added to libbfd.a ?

2007-05-23 Thread vincent dot riviere at freesbee dot fr
--- Additional Comments From vincent dot riviere at freesbee dot fr 2007-05-23 19:57 --- Sorry, it doesn't work. The filesystem is always considered in binmode. This is because you forgot the brackets in the awk regular expression ! Here is the fixed line : build_dir_mount_point=`df ${bu

[Bug ld/4538] static initialization ignored in static archive (.a)

2007-05-23 Thread ejt at andrew dot cmu dot edu
--- Additional Comments From ejt at andrew dot cmu dot edu 2007-05-23 16:25 --- > You are incorrect. The standard does not cover archive libraries, and > so the definition of "container" you're assuming has no basis in the > standard. It doesn't need to cover archives, containers, or an

[Bug binutils/4334] MAKE FAILED: cpu-powerpc.o isn't added to libbfd.a ?

2007-05-23 Thread nickc at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-05-23 13:39 --- Hi Vincent, Attached is a provisional patch that adds a check to the top level configure script to make sure that the build directory is mounted in binmode. Would you like to try it out ? I am not an autocon

[Bug binutils/4334] MAKE FAILED: cpu-powerpc.o isn't added to libbfd.a ?

2007-05-23 Thread nickc at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-05-23 13:37 --- Created an attachment (id=1856) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1856&action=view) Make sure cygwin host's build directory is mounted in binmode -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug

[Bug ld/4538] static initialization ignored in static archive (.a)

2007-05-23 Thread drow at false dot org
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2007-05-23 12:20 --- Subject: Re: static initialization ignored in static archive (.a) On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 07:20:04AM -, ejt at andrew dot cmu dot edu wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the archive format is intended

[Bug ld/4538] static initialization ignored in static archive (.a)

2007-05-23 Thread ejt at andrew dot cmu dot edu
--- Additional Comments From ejt at andrew dot cmu dot edu 2007-05-23 08:19 --- Ah, but unfortunately Mr. Earnshaw was arguing up the wrong tree there. Just because we understand why the current implementation is producing the results we see, doesn't mean the current implementation