On 2014-12-14 12:02, Harald Geyer wrote: > nwf writes: >> $ gcc -v -o hello hello.c [...] >> /usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3/collect2 >> --eh-frame-hdr -dynamic-linker /lib/ld-uClibc.so.0 >> -X -m armelf_linux_eabi -o hello >> /usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3/crt1.o >> /usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3/crti.o >> /usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3/crtbegin.o >> -L/usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3 >> -L/usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3/../../.. >> /tmp/ccjOqw9X.o -lgcc_s -lc -lgcc_s >> /usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3/crtend.o >> /usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3/crtn.o /usr/bin/ld: >> cannot find -lgcc collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status >> >> Well, yes, that's true... >> >> $ find / -name \*libgcc\* /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 >> /usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3/libgcc_s.so.1 >> /usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3/libgcc_s.so >> /usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3/libgcc.map >> /usr/lib/opkg/info/libgcc.list /usr/lib/opkg/info/libgcc.control >> >> Grepping about at random I find that >> /usr/lib/gcc/arm-openwrt-linux-uclibcgnueabi/4.8.3/libgcc_s.so contains >> the directive >> >> > GROUP ( libgcc_s.so.1 -lgcc ) > > Actually citing libgcc_s.so in full makes things a bit clearer: > $ cat libgcc_s.so > /* GNU ld script > Use the shared library, but some functions are only in > the static library. */ > GROUP ( libgcc_s.so.1 -lgcc ) > >> So I think the desire to save space expressed in >> feeds/packages/devel/gcc/README is well-intentioned but possibly stale, >> so maybe the following, too? Maybe we should be removing libgcc_pic.a >> but not libgcc.a? > > Seems reasonable. Since gcc seems to work for Christian as is, this > might be architecture dependent. Christian, any insight on this? > > As far as binutils is concerned the patch below seems to work as expected, > so I can now add my > Signed-off-by: Harald Geyer <[email protected]> > > Felix, can you take this as is or should I resend the patch? Removing libgcc_pic.a and adding libgcc.a makes sense to me. You could remove libgcc_pic.a by removing 820-libgcc_pic.patch
- Felix _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
