Subject: shared libbfd
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Gordon W. Ross <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/14/1997 15:24:10
> From: "Chris G. Demetriou" <email@example.com>
> Date: Wed, 14 May 97 12:05:46 -0700
[ ... gcc 126.96.36.199 vs 188.8.131.52 etc. ... ]
> > I wish we could start using the most recent binutils, too, but that
> > seems unlikely anytime soon.
> I understand that there's likely to be a 2.8.1 soon, so going to 2.8
> is probably not a great idea.
> In any case, is this really an option for most ports? All of the
> a.out-based ports are stuck with our toolchain until a.out shared lib
> support is present in BFD/ld/binutils. It's just not done yet, right?
> Other ports, e.g. alpha, mips, and powerpc, could benefit from having
> a different toolchain in the tree, but we (at least alpha and powerpc)
> are already sharing a common set of toolchain sources (that we're
> packaging up and shipping when we build distributions).
> In terms of integrating binutils, there are some specific features
> that i'd want to see:
> (1) shared libbfd+libopcodes+libiberty (or whatever the trio
> that normally gets built into a single shared lib in
> the standard distribution),
> (2) binutils and ld using that shared lib.
> (3) gdb using that _same_ shared lib.
> Yes, i know that gdb is shipped with a seperate bfd et al., but
> there's no reason that the same library can't be used, at least with
> binutils + gdb of not-too-different vintage.
> Certainly, the 2.8 bfd seems to work great with GDB 4.16, with perhaps
> one minor change to one header file to fix a slight prototype
I'm glad you brought this up, because I've been working on making a
shared libraries for bfd, iberty, etc. (using BSD-style makefiles).
[BTW, it's almost working - libbfd.a works, but libbfd.so fails...]
Anyway, I've never heard that "libbfd+libopcodes+libiberty" were
normally installed as a single library. Where can I learn about
the "standard" way to package those up? (if there is such a way)