[OE-core] [PATCHv3 3/6] gcc: Statically link in support libraries e.g. libmpfr libgmp etc.

[Tom Rini]

On 03/16/2011 06:27 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 10:33 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 03/14/2011 12:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 09:50 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2011 05:50 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 11:04 -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Richard Purdie
>>>>>> <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org>    wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 22:38 -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>>> ping any opinion on this patch ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This change looks rather hacky and I'd really like to understand more
>>>>>>> about why this is needed and whether there is a better way we could
>>>>>>> ensure the right flags get passed around. Can you provide more details
>>>>>>> about whats going on with this. Obviously this change as it stands isn't
>>>>>>> acceptable to upstream gcc and I'd like to see if we could find one that
>>>>>>> was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is because the supporting libraries like mpc mpfr that are needed
>>>>>> by gcc itself to run
>>>>>> we might have different versions of these libraries. So depending upon
>>>>>> shared objects
>>>>>> would mean we need to find same shared objects where say the SDK is installed
>>>>>> so either we ship the whole baggage or we link it in statically. This
>>>>>> patch makes those libs to
>>>>>> linked in statically and cross gcc wont have dependencies on these
>>>>>> libs anymore so
>>>>>> it can run on all hosts pretty much.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you look at the way the SDK toolchain works in Poky, it automatically
>>>>> ships the versions of these libraries that it needs so we don't actually
>>>>> have this problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, looking at the patch again, was the first LDFLAGS change meant to
>>>>> be in there, is that related or different to the shared/static
>>>>> mpfr/mpc/gmp issue?
>>>>
>>>> I think it's time for someone to build one at dig at it, but are you
>>>> sure they're used and shipped and not just used?  That was a problem
>>>> before and unless the exported bits are using a relative $ORIGIN in the
>>>> link path (or we've broken relocatability, which would be another
>>>> problem) there's problems today.
>>>
>>> They are used and shipped. As evidence I submit:
>>>
>>> http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/nightly/20110311-1/toolchain/x86_64/poky-lsb-eglibc-x86_64-i586-toolchain-gmae-0.9+snapshot-20110313.tar.bz2
>>
>> Is
>> /opt/poky-lsb/0.9+snapshot/sysroots/x86_64-pokysdk-linux/usr/bin/i586-poky-linux/i586-poky-linux-gcc
>> the runs on host targets the target cross compiler the user should use
>> now?  If so, you don't have relocation as the RPATH is hard-coded not
>> $ORIGIN based.  If not, can I have a pointer to the right gcc to poke
>> at?  Thanks :)
>
> Hmm, this sounds like something is not working with the relocation. I
> could have sworn we'd made that relocatable :/.
>
> It shouldn't be hard to fix with the relocation class at least...

Yes, hopefully we just need to add relocatable to the various new 
classes and that'll be that.

-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation