Re: Can't run "install-strip" in binutils 2.18 ... ?

2008-10-13 Thread Nick Clifton
Hi Paul, Is there another/better way to do this? Not really, sorry. :-( I wanted to have the binutils tools stripped when they are installed. Typically for autoconfiscated environments I run "make install-strip" to do this. For binutils if I try this I get: make: *** No rule to make targ

[Bug binutils/6937] binutils 2.18 fails linking libopcodes.so due to missing symbols

2008-10-13 Thread kirill at shutemov dot name
-- What|Removed |Added CC||kirill at shutemov dot name http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6937 --- You are receiving thi

[Bug binutils/6937] binutils 2.18 fails linking libopcodes.so due to missing symbols

2008-10-13 Thread kirill at shutemov dot name
--- Additional Comments From kirill at shutemov dot name 2008-10-13 15:06 --- This change provokes text relocations. I guess, PIC version of libiberty.a should be used. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6937 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You ar

Re: Can't run "install-strip" in binutils 2.18 ... ?

2008-10-13 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 10:31 +0100, Nick Clifton wrote: > > It looks like the top-level makefile in binutils doesn't grok the > > install-strip target. > > Correct. If you are really miffed by this, please file a bug report at > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/. OK thanks! > > However if I look a

Re: [Bug binutils/6937] binutils 2.18 fails linking libopcodes.so due to missing symbols

2008-10-13 Thread Nick Clifton
Hi Kirill, This change provokes text relocations. Sorry - please could you explain what that means and why it is undesirable ? I guess, PIC version of libiberty.a should be used. A PIC version of libiberty is not normally generated even if configure with --enable-shared... Cheers Nick

[Bug binutils/6937] binutils 2.18 fails linking libopcodes.so due to missing symbols

2008-10-13 Thread nickc at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-10-13 15:28 --- Subject: Re: binutils 2.18 fails linking libopcodes.so dueto missing symbols Hi Kirill, > This change provokes text relocations. Sorry - please could you explain what that means and why it is undesirable ?

[Bug binutils/6937] binutils 2.18 fails linking libopcodes.so due to missing symbols

2008-10-13 Thread kirill at shutemov dot name
--- Additional Comments From kirill at shutemov dot name 2008-10-13 18:27 --- (In reply to comment #10) > Subject: Re: binutils 2.18 fails linking libopcodes.so > due to missing symbols > > Hi Kirill, > > > This change provokes text relocations. > > Sorry - please could you explain

[Bug binutils/6937] binutils 2.18 fails linking libopcodes.so due to missing symbols

2008-10-13 Thread ldv at altlinux dot org
--- Additional Comments From ldv at altlinux dot org 2008-10-13 22:56 --- (In reply to comment #10) > > I guess, PIC version of libiberty.a should be used. > > A PIC version of libiberty is not normally generated even if configure > with --enable-shared... This is not a problem: the P

[Bug binutils/6937] binutils 2.18 fails linking libopcodes.so due to missing symbols

2008-10-13 Thread ldv at altlinux dot org
-- What|Removed |Added CC||ldv at altlinux dot org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6937 --- You are receiving this ma

[Bug binutils/6937] binutils 2.18 fails linking libopcodes.so due to missing symbols

2008-10-13 Thread amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2008-10-14 00:38 --- I think Nick's patch is wrong. :-( We don't ever build a shared libiberty, and libiberty.a usually contains non-pic objects. So linking libiberty.a against libopcodes.so will (depending on target) produ