[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: hardcode_direct et. al.

From: Albert Chin
Subject: Re: hardcode_direct et. al.
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:46:46 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6i

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 02:26:42AM +0100, Gary V.Vaughan wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Libtoolers,
> I see that we have developed a test failure in demo-hardcode.test on
> linux, which seems to be down to the hardcoded value from libtool.m4
> disagreeing with the probed value from demos-hardcode.test.
> It seems to me that we should be probing from *libtool.m4*, not 
> guessing and then testing!  It also gives us one less thing to maintain 
> in each libtool port.
> Does anyone know of a reason why we can't remove demo-hardcode.test 
> altogether and move the probes into libtool.m4?

Well, the correct way to test if the hardcoded path is in a binary is
to use an "objdump"-like tool (chatr on HP-UX 32bit, elfdump on HP-UX
64bit, dump -Hv on AIX, elfdump on Solaris, odump on Tru64 UNIX,
elfdump on IRIX). I don't know how to do this when cross-compiling

albert chin (address@hidden)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]