Home Original page

$(build_tooldir)/lib (was Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-05/msg01104.html)

H . J . Lu hjl@lucon.org
Fri Jul 21 07:49:00 GMT 2000 
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 01:17:02AM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> To resurrect a thread from May...
> 
> Jim Wilson <wilson@cygnus.com> writes:
> 
> > The part of H.J.'s patch that I don't understand is why he adds a
> > -B option pointing to a library directory: -B$(build_tooldir)/lib/.
> > There are no executables there, so adding a -B option for that directory
> > seems wrong and unnecessary.
> 
> Presumably because -B also adds to startfile_prefixes; the same
> unlibsubdir problem that caused us to define build_tooldir for
> executables would also affect the libraries and startfiles.

Exactly. BTW, you won't see it if you use newlib. It is too bad not
many people use glibc for cross compiling instead of newlibc. At least,
they don't maintain gcc :-(. It is a fun to build a complete cross
compiler from Linux/ia32 to Linux/ia64 :-). You will see a few build
problems.

> 
> But then why don't we also need a -L$(build_tooldir)/lib?

Because -B$(build_tooldir)/lib/ also adds $(build_tooldir)/lib to
ld's library search path, why do I need to add it again by
-L$(build_tooldir)/lib?


H.J.
More information about the Binutils mailing list