[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: solaris 10: address@hidden

From: David Lee
Subject: Re: solaris 10: address@hidden
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 19:04:03 +0100 (BST)

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Howard Chu wrote:

Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, David Lee wrote:

I'm using GNU/ld; but I'd be happy,as part of the experiments, to try to redirect our "gcc" to use the Solaris/ld. (How to redirect it?)

I recommend that anyone who installs GCC under Solaris use the Solaris linker rather than the GNU linker. This is based on past experience learned the hard way.

Agreed. The GNU linker used to be pretty good up to the SunOS 4 days, but we always use the Solaris linker on our builds now. Again, past experience...

Thanks for your replies.  Much appreciated!

From the perspective of the individual end-user, starting afresh with
their own installation, what you say is probably appropriate.

But from the perspective of multiple suppliers of autotools-based software packages, each to many hundreds (or more) of end-user sites e.g. as being listed at:

it would be useful to keep flexibility to a maximum, so far as is reasonably practical. (Yes, the consensus view may be to discourage GNU/ld on Solaris, but it would be useful to be able to use it, or, at the very least, to be able to offer a statement to the effect "Sorry, but GNU/ld on S10 doesn't work because..." and to offer a decent explanatory text at the "..." as to why S10 has made things so much worse.)

For instance, do we _know_ that this S10/address@hidden problem is _definitely_ 100% attributable to GNU/ld? Is "libtool" known/proven to be not contributing in any way to this problem? As was mentioned in my email of 29th June, the "make check" phase of libtool-1.5.18 _itself_ suffers from this problem. Or if we can demonstrate an S10 bug, that, too, would be useful.

Because this problem shows in libtool itself, it brings us one step closer to the underlying problem than do other suffering autotools applications. So investigating this failure of libtools own "make check", which is what I'm offering to try to assist in doing, could be fruitful in pinning down the problem to one of S10, GNU/ld, libtools (or to a better understanding of a possible double-fault problem).

So guidance would be appreciated in:
1. how to drive libtool and/or gcc to use a different "ld" (for instance to Solaris/ld and a separately built latest GNU/ld);
 2. whether my earlier view of possible overloaded "build_libtool_need_lc"
is moderately sensible... in which case, what next?.

Thanks again.


:  David Lee                                I.T. Service          :
:  Senior Systems Programmer                Computer Centre       :
:                                           Durham University     :
:            South Road            :
:                                           Durham DH1 3LE        :
:  Phone: +44 191 334 2752                  U.K.                  :

reply via email to

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