https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25120
--- Comment #3 from Harald van Dijk <harald at gigawatt dot nl> --- (In reply to Nix from comment #1) > 4: This is very strange. In 2.33, readelf carefully calls only .o files that > do not cite BFD functions, even indirectly, so ctf-open-bfd.o is never > pulled in and BFD is never needed. (I just checked 2.33, and there are no > references to any ctf-open-bfd.o functions in anything else in libctf, and > no references from readelf either. You can figure out what the dead refs are > by #if 0'ing out the contents of libctf/ctf-open-bfd.c and doing make > all-libctf, then rebuilding readelf and seeing what the reported locus of > undefined symbol errors is now. (objdump will, obviously, fail to build if > you do this, because it uses the functions you just removed, but that's not > a problem). If I comment out the entire file, readelf links successfully. It seems that with tcc, merely being included in libctf.a is enough to require its dependencies to be present as well. > In trunk, we generate two .a / .so's, one containing ctf-open-bfd.o and the > other not, in part to make this separation more explicit, but I really > thought I had it working in 2.33 too. Well, what's in 2.33 does work with gcc... Having two separate libraries seems like it should satisfy tcc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils