libelf.so.1?

libelf.so.1?

[ANDY KENNEDY]

This may be a buildroot issue, but I don't know.  Looking around shows
that this is supposed to be part of ???binutils??? though the pkg name
that produces results in Google is bfd.

The question:  I'm attempting to get a shared libelf, however, the only
one that ends up in my sysroot (I think from the buildroot bastardized
install I do to put libs back into the toolchain) is libelf.a.  I was
half-way tasked to find the shared object.  So, where does that puppy
live?  Looking at the GNU website, there is a bfd which redirects to
binutills.  Rock!  I say to myself, I should be able to get that.  Next
I open up my good ole ct-ng menuconfig and see an option in Binutils
"install libs in target".  Excellent! I says to myself again.  But,
alas, that doesn't give me what I want.

The ultimate goal is to get mpatrol in the toolchain so we can track
down this memory leak we have.  Though, I'm only working on this like
2% of my time.  Hoping someone out there knows the answer to my pain.

Thanks!
Andy

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: libelf.so.1?

[Yann E. MORIN]

Andy, All,

On Thursday 28 July 2011 22:32:25 ANDY KENNEDY wrote:
> This may be a buildroot issue, but I don't know.  Looking around shows
> that this is supposed to be part of ???binutils??? though the pkg name
> that produces results in Google is bfd.

libelf.so comes from the package named, guess it... libelf ! :-)
    http://www.mr511.de/software/

> The question:  I'm attempting to get a shared libelf, however, the only
> one that ends up in my sysroot (I think from the buildroot bastardized
> install I do to put libs back into the toolchain) is libelf.a. I was
> half-way tasked to find the shared object.  So, where does that puppy
> live?

That should ultimately be a question for the buildroot guys. But see below.

> Looking at the GNU website, there is a bfd which redirects to
> binutills.  Rock!  I say to myself, I should be able to get that.  Next
> I open up my good ole ct-ng menuconfig and see an option in Binutils
> "install libs in target".  Excellent! I says to myself again.  But,
> alas, that doesn't give me what I want.

Indeed. libelf is not from binutils, but from libelf. ;-)
crosstool-NG builds a static-only version of libelf for the target,
because it is needed by ltrace.

Only the static version is built, because I don't see it as being a system
library. ltrace is here as a debug tool, and it goes along with the other
debug tools. And as lbelf is not a system lib, we just use the static
version to link ltrace against it. Deselect ltrace, you won't get libelf.

The error was to install libelf in the sysroot in the first place. It
should not have gone there, it should have been in a temporary place that
gets trashed after ltrace is built.

Again: libelf is *not* a system library. The existence of the static version
in the sysroot is just hapenstance, and a side effect of ltrace being there.

You should not rely on libelf's presence in the sysroot.

> The ultimate goal is to get mpatrol in the toolchain so we can track
> down this memory leak we have.  Though, I'm only working on this like
> 2% of my time.  Hoping someone out there knows the answer to my pain.

Buildroot (which it seems you are using) already has a libelf package.
Use that.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

RE: libelf.so.1?

[ANDY KENNEDY]

> On Thursday 28 July 2011 22:32:25 ANDY KENNEDY wrote:
> > This may be a buildroot issue, but I don't know.  Looking around
> shows
> > that this is supposed to be part of ???binutils??? though the pkg
> name
> > that produces results in Google is bfd.
> 
> libelf.so comes from the package named, guess it... libelf ! :-)
>     http://www.mr511.de/software/

Bummer.  I had high hopes that we were building something better,
as that package _ONLY_ generates libelf.a.  Ah well!  I guess I'll
do some more trail blazing.

Thanks Yann!

Andy

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: libelf.so.1?

[Bryan Hundven]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:52 PM, ANDY KENNEDY <ANDY.KENNEDY@adtran.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday 28 July 2011 22:32:25 ANDY KENNEDY wrote:
>> > This may be a buildroot issue, but I don't know.  Looking around
>> shows
>> > that this is supposed to be part of ???binutils??? though the pkg
>> name
>> > that produces results in Google is bfd.
>>
>> libelf.so comes from the package named, guess it... libelf ! :-)
>>     http://www.mr511.de/software/
>
> Bummer.  I had high hopes that we were building something better,
> as that package _ONLY_ generates libelf.a.  Ah well!  I guess I'll
> do some more trail blazing.

Maybe you are looking for elfutils?

>
> Thanks Yann!
>
> Andy
>
> --
> For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
>
>

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: libelf.so.1?

[Yann E. MORIN]

Andy, All,

On Friday 29 July 2011 055237 ANDY KENNEDY wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 July 2011 22:32:25 ANDY KENNEDY wrote:
> > > This may be a buildroot issue, but I don't know.  Looking around
> > shows
> > > that this is supposed to be part of ???binutils??? though the pkg
> > name
> > > that produces results in Google is bfd.
> > 
> > libelf.so comes from the package named, guess it... libelf ! :-)
> >     http://www.mr511.de/software/
> 
> Bummer.  I had high hopes that we were building something better,
> as that package _ONLY_ generates libelf.a.  Ah well!  I guess I'll
> do some more trail blazing.

libelf is totally capable of building a shared library.
It's just that crosstool-NG configures libelf not to do so.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +0/33 662376056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |   ^                |
| --==< O_o >==-- '------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  /e\  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | (*_*) | / \ HTML MAIL    |  """  conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------'-------'------------------'--------------------'

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

RE: libelf.so.1?

[ANDY KENNEDY]

> > Bummer.  I had high hopes that we were building something better,
> > as that package _ONLY_ generates libelf.a.  Ah well!  I guess
> I'll
> > do some more trail blazing.
> 
> libelf is totally capable of building a shared library.
> It's just that crosstool-NG configures libelf not to do so.
> 

Yeah, it is buildroot that is installing that to the toolchain.
AND, it is NOT building shared.  I'm not 100% sure why, but I'll
fix that over there and send that patch up to buildroot.

Looks like it is using the host-side ranlib, ar, and other tools
that SHOULD be done as $CROSS_COMPILE, but the --target doesn't
work on that configure script. . . 


Yann, Thanks again for the help!

Andy

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq