Core Development Tools/Discussion/General/static libc linkage with M6/List of Posts
 
Forum Topic - static libc linkage with M6:
   
Update
dave carlson(deleted)
04/10/2008 9:00 AM
post6598
static libc linkage with M6   
Same symptom as the M4 drop question below.  I checked my libc.so link and it points to the libc.so.2 that is in the M6 
tarball.

My 4.2.1 build produced libc.so linked binaries (of considerably smaller size :-) immediately prior to installing the M6
 drop install.  (Yes, I made realclean, etc.)

Also, some doc for mkxfs would be helpful since mkifs is just a symlink and the 6.3.2 doc has just a "mkxfs -- see mkefs
, mketfs, and mkifs".
Steve Reid(deleted)
04/10/2008 9:38 AM
post6601
RE: static libc linkage with M6   
All of mkefs, mketfs, and mkifs are symlinks to mkxfs, and mkxfs behaves
differently depending on which of these you invoke. That's why the Utilities
Reference points you to the docs for mkefs, mketfs, and mkifs.


Steve Reid (stever@qnx.com)
Technical Editor
QNX Software Systems 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dave carlson [mailto:dcarls07@harris.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:00 AM
> To: general-toolchain
> Subject: static libc linkage with M6
> 
> 
> Same symptom as the M4 drop question below.  I checked my 
> libc.so link and it points to the libc.so.2 that is in the M6 tarball.
> 
> My 4.2.1 build produced libc.so linked binaries (of 
> considerably smaller size :-) immediately prior to installing 
> the M6 drop install.  (Yes, I made realclean, etc.)
> 
> Also, some doc for mkxfs would be helpful since mkifs is just 
> a symlink and the 6.3.2 doc has just a "mkxfs -- see mkefs, 
> mketfs, and mkifs".
> 
> _______________________________________________
> General
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post6598
>
dave carlson(deleted)
04/10/2008 3:48 PM
post6647
Re: static libc linkage with M6   
It appears that even with a good symlink to a good libc.2.so, the 4.2.1 tool chain cannot follow the symlink and so 
builds static binaries.

Thanks for your help... :-(

dave
Ryan Mansfield(deleted)
04/10/2008 4:17 PM
post6650
Re: static libc linkage with M6   
> 
> It appears that even with a good symlink to a good libc.2.so, the 4.2.1 tool 
> chain cannot follow the symlink and so builds static binaries.

When you say you added a good symlink did you mean a cygwin symlink? Or Windows shortcut or were you using the new Vista
 symlinks? cygwin symlinks won't work as the toolchain is now made up of native Windows binaries. And as far as I know 
Windows 2000 and XP doesn't have support for real symlinks.

A PR has been raised and hopefully the next Trinity2 milestone packages will be correct and have copies in place of the 
symlinks but in the meantime, copying over the libraries is the right thing to do.

Regards,

Ryan Mansfield

Return