The information in this mail and the quoted ones might be intresting for some of those reading here. ( I start to wonder, if this thing can be build cleanly as long as the module "tools" exists).
----- Forwarded message from "Kevin B. Hendricks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- From: Kevin B. Hendricks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:29:48 -0500 To: [email protected], "George Zahopoulos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [porting-dev] somehow the problem is related to my tools build - ideas? Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] Hi George, The problem came from the changes that forced the use of stlport 4.5 instead of the external version of stlport 4.0 that I had specified. The resulting stlport 4.5 seems to confuse the compiler by including its own set_new_handler (almost as if libgcc.a got pulled into it somehow). Once I realized that something was up I was able to remove the bad stlport build and go back to my known working stlport 4.0 build and now all seems well again. Thanks, Kevin On March 14, 2002 06:47, George Zahopoulos wrote: > Those patches were checked in to fix some issues with unresolved > symbols, as the Irix compiler is fussy about the order in which > libraries are linked in, whereas most other compilers on other OS's > aren't. As far as the issue with -lgcc being linked goes, it has > nothing to do with the patches submitted by us, as they rearranged the > order of libraries, and did not include any new libraries. This sound > more likely to be a problem with the platform specific makefile, as > libgcc should be linked in from there. Kevin you might want to see how > dramatically your platform specific makefile has changed. > George > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sander Vesik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:22 AM > > To: Kevin Hendricks > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [porting-dev] somehow the problem is related to my tools > > build - ideas? > > > > > > > > There were IRIX patches that chnaged link order in couple of > > place, though > > I don't think anywhere as low as that (iirc, sw, sc, sd, svx + > > another lib). > > > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Kevin Hendricks wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > It seems whatever changed has resulted in -lgcc being > > > > pulled into the > > > > > builds. This is an issue since we are wrappering the alloc related > > > functions (set_new_handle). > > > > > > I think the most correct way to use gcc since link order > > > > does matter is > > > > > to always use the -nostdlib in the link command of each and > > > > exectuable > > > > > and shared library that uses tools/source/memmgr/memmgr.cxx > > > > > > Then when standalone executables are built we should explicitly add > > > -lgcc at the end of the link list to make sure it is > > > > compile din last > > > > > (with the -no-inhibit-exec switch added for the linker so > > > > that it still > > > > > creates the executable. > > > > > > The issue here is what really changed to that gcc thinks it > > > > is linking > > > > > with -lgcc when previously it did not. > > > > > > Perhaps someone changed the -L path order or added a path that > > > explicitly includes it? > > > > > > The "what changed" part is what is troubling to me? I > > > > can't see any > > > > > differnces but there is something different about the build > > > > environment. > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we be using -nostdlib here and then for things > > > > like rscdep do > > > > > the same thing and then explicity add -lgcc to the end of > > > > the link list? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > Kevin B. Hendricks > > > Associate Professor of Operations and Information Technology > > > Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario > > > London Ontario, CANADA N6A 3K7 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > Sander > > > > I see a dark sail on the horizon > > Set under a dark cloud that hides the sun > > Bring me my Broadsword and clear understanding > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. (Benjamin Franklin)
