Actually, just when you think you understood things, I now see why the old patch seemed to work. What happens is that with those modifications (use /usr/lib/libbfd.a) all compile tests that try to find out whether libbfd, libiberty or libz are there fail. And so we always take the last route of HAVE_CPLUS_DEMANGLE. Well, the compile works, but I am not really sure whether this is what we want. There certainly is a reason to try libbfd first. Then, while talking about this, there was one idea that, whatever we do, if we could avoid having a Ubuntu specific change to carry around, this would be much less burden to maintain. There seemed to be an option documented in the makefile (which is to define LDFLAGS="-static") that should result in a static build. Though this seems broken. However, if that can be fixed, that would be something acceptable upstream. So I need to look at that a bit more.
-- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/783660 Title: linux-tools: perf should link statically to libbfd To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/783660/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
