> -----Original Message----- > From: Bernhard Fischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:01 PM > To: Filippo ARCIDIACONO > Cc: 'Carmelo AMOROSO'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: utils/readelf built twice? > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:49:22PM +0200, Filippo ARCIDIACONO wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernhard Fischer > >> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:31 AM > >> To: Carmelo AMOROSO > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: utils/readelf built twice? > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 08:06:21AM +0100, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > >> > Bernhard Fischer wrote: > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> Can anybody confirm that > >> >> make -C utils > >> >> builds readelf twice? > >No. The first one it is only the "echo" command output. > >That, further, is different from the compilation command. In > my opinion > >there is something to fix. > >Perhaps, simply removing "@$(disp_compile.c)" call from the > "compile.u" > >routine in Makerules file. Looking the trunk tree, this issue has been fixed in the revision 21505. Then it seems ok for me. I don't understood why you had deleted the strip command.
> >The compilation command seems ok. > > What revision are you using? I'm using the latest branch revision 17427. > As mentioned below, i've since fixed this via > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > r21505 | aldot | 2008-03-26 19:49:16 +0100 (Wed, 26 Mar 2008) > | 5 lines > > - improve building utils > Either by first compiling objects and linking those or by > just passing > the source to create the desired binary (this patchlet does > the latter). > Fixes cosmetic glitch by just not building individual .o > (in pwd, at least). > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > r21506 | aldot | 2008-03-26 20:40:39 +0100 (Wed, 26 Mar 2008) > | 2 lines > > - fixup stripping of host utils and make host-utils compile with > std=gnu99 > > thanks, > >> >> > >> >> thanks, > >> >> > >> > Hi, > >> > yes you're right !!! > >> > further, ldconfig the second time is linked with > >> chroot_realpath too. > >> > >> I think i improved the situation yesterday night. Please > holler if i > >> broke something. > >> > >> utils/*.c now even build with our default CFLAGS, i.e. with > >> std=gnu99 Maybe i'll find the time to clean them up a > little bit so > >> they do not throw so many warnings.. > >> > >> Thanks, Carmelo, for verifying this and cheers > >> _______________________________________________ > >> uClibc mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc > >> > > > >Regards, > > > >Filippo Arcidiacono. > > > Filippo. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
