On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 11:57 -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 12:22 -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:57:51AM -0500, Chris Conroy wrote: > > > Does this really make the SDK relocatable? I thought there were still > > > major issues with relocating GCC. > > > > GCC built from OE may still have relocation problems - haven't checked > > lately. > > But it doesn't mean that's the only use case scenario... There is also > > external toolchain option, as well as building SDK without the toolchain. > > Both of those cases were tested with the above change for several months > > now. > > The hard part is that in some distributions you will have libmpfr.so & > co if you have a host gcc, and on some you won't. That in turn makes > gcc relocatable or not. Everything else is handleable via --sysroot=.
What exactly is the problem with libmpfr? I would have thought you could just ship libmpfr.so.6 inside the sysroot and link gcc against that local copy (via -rpath $ORIGIN...), without using the system library at all. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
