From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8585 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2011 14:20:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 8565 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2011 14:20:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vx0-f197.google.com (HELO mail-vx0-f197.google.com) (209.85.220.197) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:19:57 +0000 Received: by vxh17 with SMTP id 17so1475694vxh.0 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.234.16 with SMTP id g16mr4817446agh.181.1314195597014; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.234.16 with SMTP id g16mr4817440agh.181.1314195596808; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from coign.google.com ([2620:0:1000:2301:21c:25ff:fe14:8d86]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n15sm737092anm.5.2011.08.24.07.19.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:19:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Ian Lance Taylor To: Bryan Ischo Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Patching autoconf to support static binutils? References: <4E52CCCF.7080009@ischo.com> <4E542A60.7010104@ischo.com> <201108232325.40180.vapier@gentoo.org> <4E54877D.7080402@ischo.com> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4E54877D.7080402@ischo.com> (Bryan Ischo's message of "Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:09:17 -0700") 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-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: 2011-08/txt/msg00169.txt.bz2 Bryan Ischo writes: > On 8/23/2011 8:25 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 18:32:00 Bryan Ischo wrote: >>> On 08/22/11 14:40, Bryan Ischo wrote: >>>> Hello. I am trying to figure out how to build a statically linked >>>> version of binutils (starting with binutils source version 2.21.1). I >>>> have found some old discussions of this topic via search results, but >>>> there was never any real resolution to this issue as far as I can tell. >>> Hello out there ... is anyone steering this ship???? >> wow, 24 hours w/out a response and you're already getting punchy ? this is >> open source which means you get to figure things out yourself if you cant find >> help. not bug people even more for their free assistance. > > It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and I don't think your response is > warranted. Additionally, it is disappointing that you put more effort > into writing this paragraph than to your response below ... > >> ./configure >> make configure-host >> make LDFLAGS=-all-static >> -mike > > If you'll read my original email you'll note that the above doesn't > work because LDFLAGS is passed to gcc by some of the binutils > Makefiles and gcc doesn't like the -all-static option. It sounds like you have already investigated and analyzed the problem more than any of the binutils developers. It's not a typical request and I would not be surprised in the least if there were no simple way to do it. Since this seems to matter to you I would encourage you to figure out a patch. Ian