In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter Naulls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Peter Naulls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
--
John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home BASS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ARM powered, RISC OS driven
_______________________________________________
GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
