On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:38:59 +0200, Jonas Maebe
wrote:
> On 22 May 2010, at 19:25, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
>> I checked the files, all .o files had the section. But there was also an
>> .or file of the new FPC resource system in INPUT() this file had no
>> .note.GNU-stack section.
>> Is that rel
On 22 May 2010, at 19:25, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> I checked the files, all .o files had the section. But there was also an
> .or file of the new FPC resource system in INPUT() this file had no
> .note.GNU-stack section.
> Is that relevant?
Actually, yes. The ELF resource writer should probably
On Sat, 22 May 2010 14:03:57 +0200, Jonas Maebe
wrote:
> On 22 May 2010, at 14:00, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
>>> That suggests that one of the object files used to link this library is
>>> missing a ".note.GNU-stack" section for some reason.
>> How can I detect which one it is? (How can I list the
On 22 May 2010, at 14:00, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> That suggests that one of the object files used to link this library is
>> missing a ".note.GNU-stack" section for some reason.
> How can I detect which one it is? (How can I list the sections of an object
> file?)
readelf -S
If you compile th
>> Thank you for the information! I use FPC 2.4.0 but get this warning...
>
> Then I don't know what the problem is. I cannot reproduce it.
>
>> It seems like the E flag is set.
>
> That suggests that one of the object files used to link this library is
> missing a ".note.GNU-stack" section for
On 22 May 2010, at 12:56, Thierry Bothorel wrote:
> Jonas Maebe a écrit :
>> When you build the entire source tree for a different architecture than the
>> host architecture, both a cross-compiler and a native compiler are created.
>> Both binaries are in fpc/compiler, so they have to have diff
On 22 May 2010, at 10:52, Thierry Bothorel wrote:
> Reading makefile I understood why, now I wonder what is the benefit to
> add the "cross" string inside the compiler file name ?
When you build the entire source tree for a different architecture than the
host architecture, both a cross-compile
Hi,
I am not comfortable with make and I was looking for why i get for
example "ppcrossarm" if I cross build with a "one line" like
make clean all install CROSSINSTALL=1 ...
and only "pparm" with
make clean all ...
make install CROSSINSTALL=1 ...
Reading makefile I understood why,
