On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 01:13:22AM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 27 December 2010 22:07, Oliver Kullmann wrote: > > Just as your e-mail came in, I've discovered that myself > > (reading the make-output :-(). > > > > There are always so many unknowns in these (unfortunately fully > > unspecified) builds, one always runs around like a randomised chicken. > > > > It runs now much longer as before, so there's hope. > > > > Will it actually solve the linking problems by itself (apparently > > the only possibility is static linking), or does one have to add > > run-time linker-instructions when running gcc? I hope not (that > > was the major motivation to do it this way). > > It's entirely possible to link dynamically to libgmp.so and > libmpfr.so, by installing gmp and mpfr in system library diretories or > by using --with-gmp and --with-mpfr, but if you do that then you need > to ensure that those libs will be found at runtime (via ldconfig or > LD_LIBRARY_PATH or equivalent mechanisms) > The problem is the gcc-build itself: LD_LIBRARY_PATH is not honoured for building of libgfortran (4.2.4) and the other libs which with 4.4.x also need gmp, mpfr. I also tried other possibilities, to no avail: all information on dynamic linking paths seems to be blocked for the build of the gcc-libraries. > Which is why I always recommend that people either build gmp and mpfr > with --disable-shared (so they only get static libs) Didn't think of that; worth a try. What I don't understand is that the linking-system is so silly: Either you have the link-library directly put into the executable, or so link-library you compile with is just disregarded and a completely new game is opened at run-time: the most sensible thing would be to store the path to the link-library against which you compiled it, and to use that at run-time. One can hardcode these things, but only via linker-flags --- which often (so in the gcc-build) are simply not honoured in build systems. It should be the compiler which does it automatically. Must have some historic reason. > or they put the > source trees in the gcc tree, which automatically does static linking. I thought so. Yet I didn't succeed building 4.5.2, but finally I will get there ... Thanks! Oliver
