From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18789 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2011 14:52:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 18778 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2011 14:52:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pz0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f41.google.com) (209.85.210.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:52:33 +0000 Received: by pzk4 with SMTP id 4so452622pzk.0 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:52:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.42.104 with SMTP id n8mr297600pbl.496.1303829552452; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.40.99 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:52:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:52:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: binutils prerequisites (recent zlib version - what else?) From: Steffen Dettmer To: binutils@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00373.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:43 PM, wrote: > ../../../gcc-4.6.0/binutils/bfd/compress.c:100: warning: implicit > declaration of function `compressBound' > [...] > I looked http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html and > ../gcc-4.6.0/binutils-2.21/configure --help|grep zlib > but did not find --disable-zlib or alike. Just in case someone else ever looks for the same, here a small update: I found it here: $ src/gcc-4.6.0/binutils/bfd/configure --help|grep zlib --with-zlib include zlib support (auto/yes/no) default=auto > Why do I need zlib at all? It is explained in src/gcc-4.6.0/binutils/bfd/configure.in: ... # Link in zlib if we can. This allows us to read compressed debug sections. # This is used only by compress.c. AM_ZLIB ... So for now the additional configure option `--with-zlib=no' should avoid (or workaround?) my issue. I assume that when zlib is installed, then at least some "recent" version must be installed, because there is no `--with-zlib=internal' or alike, is this correct? I noticed that gcc has an option `--with-system-zlib', so in total I would need --with-system-zlib=no, but if I understand correctly this is not supported by binutil/bfd. Did I understand correctly? oki, Steffen