From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 405 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2011 16:27:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 388 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2011 16:27:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:26:48 +0000 Received: from kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.84]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p3QGQlTA016615 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:26:47 -0700 Received: from iwn34 (iwn34.prod.google.com [10.241.68.98]) by kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p3QGQjYt000360 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:26:45 -0700 Received: by iwn34 with SMTP id 34so877440iwn.5 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.43.55.141 with SMTP id vy13mr1053285icb.477.1303835205509; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from coign.google.com (dhcp-172-22-120-216.mtv.corp.google.com [172.22.120.216]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d9sm2697884ibb.36.2011.04.26.09.26.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:26:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Ian Lance Taylor To: Steffen Dettmer Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: binutils prerequisites (recent zlib version - what else?) References: Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:27:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Steffen Dettmer's message of "Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:52:31 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00375.txt.bz2 Steffen Dettmer writes: > So for now the additional configure option `--with-zlib=no' > should avoid (or workaround?) my issue. By the way, this can also be written as --without-zlib. > 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? Yes. > 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? Unrecognized --with options are ignored. The difference in the options is because for gcc, zlib is not optional when building libjava. For the binutils zlib is always optional. Ian