Re: [xml] Build failure on Sparc solaris using gcc and binutils

2010-03-15 Thread Rob Richards
Daniel Veillard wrote: On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:09:19AM +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote: Daniel Veillard wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:26:27AM +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote: Matthias Jung wrote: [SNIP] My suggestion as long -M ld option is not clear ;-)

Re: [xml] Build failure on Sparc solaris using gcc and binutils

2010-03-10 Thread Daniel Veillard
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 02:01:30AM +0200, Roumen Petrov wrote: [...] So I just finish rebuild of libxml2, libxslt, and xmlsec (linux+mingw-cross). okay thanks for the quick answer :-) Hum, that's an old thread but I think still relevant. I tried to update some of the configure and

Re: [xml] Build failure on Sparc solaris using gcc and binutils

2010-03-10 Thread Roumen Petrov
Daniel Veillard wrote: On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:09:19AM +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote: Daniel Veillard wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:26:27AM +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote: Matthias Jung wrote: [SNIP] My suggestion as long -M ld option is not clear ;-) VERSION_SCRIPT_FLAGS= $($LD --help 21 |

Re: [xml] Build failure on Sparc solaris using gcc and binutils

2010-03-10 Thread Roumen Petrov
Roumen Petrov wrote: Daniel Veillard wrote: On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:09:19AM +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote: Daniel Veillard wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:26:27AM +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote: Matthias Jung wrote: [SNIP] My suggestion as long -M ld option is not clear ;-)

Re: [xml] Build failure on Sparc solaris using gcc and binutils

2010-03-09 Thread Daniel Veillard
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:09:19AM +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote: Daniel Veillard wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:26:27AM +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote: Matthias Jung wrote: [SNIP] My suggestion as long -M ld option is not clear ;-) VERSION_SCRIPT_FLAGS= $($LD --help 21 | grep --

Re: [xml] Build failure on Sparc solaris using gcc and binutils

2010-03-09 Thread Roumen Petrov
Daniel Veillard wrote: On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:09:19AM +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote: Daniel Veillard wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:26:27AM +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote: Matthias Jung wrote: [SNIP] My suggestion as long -M ld option is not clear ;-) VERSION_SCRIPT_FLAGS= $($LD --help 21 |

Re: [xml] Build failure on Sparc solaris using gcc and binutils

2009-10-22 Thread Roumen Petrov
Daniel Veillard wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:26:27AM +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote: Matthias Jung wrote: [SNIP] My suggestion as long -M ld option is not clear ;-) VERSION_SCRIPT_FLAGS= $($LD --help 21 | grep -- --version-script /dev/null) \ VERSION_SCRIPT_FLAGS=-Wl,--version-script=

Re: [xml] Build failure on Sparc solaris using gcc and binutils

2009-10-21 Thread Matthias Jung
I looked a bit deeper into details and ask myself whether the check for Solaris and static usage of -M option is a good idea at all. If a linker supports option --version-script it should be used no matter which operating system is in use. First of all I suggest to change the line:

[xml] Build failure on Sparc solaris using gcc and binutils

2009-10-19 Thread Matthias Jung
Hi all, on sparc solaris ./configure.in sets VERSION_SCRIPT_FLAGS to -Wl,-M -Wl, no matter which compiler/linker is used. Unfortunately gnu gcc/ld does not like -M option for symbol files, which causes a build using gcc to fail. Instead good old --version-script= is expectd here. Any idea

Re: [xml] Build failure on Sparc solaris using gcc and binutils

2009-10-19 Thread Daniel Veillard
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 03:19:15PM +0200, Matthias Jung wrote: Hi all, on sparc solaris ./configure.in sets VERSION_SCRIPT_FLAGS to -Wl,-M -Wl, no matter which compiler/linker is used. Unfortunately gnu gcc/ld does not like -M option for symbol files, which causes a build using gcc to