* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2004-09-03 20:46 ` mckinlay at redhat dot com
2004-09-03 20:52 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: mckinlay at redhat dot com @ 2004-09-03 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mckinlay at redhat dot com 2004-09-03 20:46 -------
Most likely, this is also due to automake passing the wrong -B directories to
libtool/gcj while building libjava.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
2004-09-03 20:46 ` [Bug libgcj/17311] " mckinlay at redhat dot com
@ 2004-09-03 20:52 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2004-09-09 3:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2004-09-03 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-09-03 20:52 -------
I don't think so. The problem is similar to bug 16633.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
2004-09-03 20:46 ` [Bug libgcj/17311] " mckinlay at redhat dot com
2004-09-03 20:52 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2004-09-09 3:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-09 16:25 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-09 3:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-09 03:42 -------
Is this fixed?
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-09 3:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-09 16:25 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2004-09-14 18:42 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2004-09-09 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-09-09 16:25 -------
No. Although the nature of this bug is the same as bug 16633,
they requires different fixes. I posted 2 patches to fix this
bug. The first one is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg00663.html
and the second one is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg00836.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-09 16:25 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2004-09-14 18:42 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2004-09-16 0:11 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2004-09-14 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-09-14 18:42 -------
The updated second patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg01449.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-14 18:42 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2004-09-16 0:11 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2004-10-11 20:13 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2004-09-16 0:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-09-16 00:11 -------
An updated second patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg01486.html
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-09-16 00:11:49
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-16 0:11 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2004-10-11 20:13 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-11 20:32 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-11 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 20:13 -------
I read through these patches a little.
I don't understand why ltmain.sh is the way it is,
but Gary's comment seemed appropriate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg02333.html
Doesn't the second patch eliminate the need for
the first one? I still don't understand why the
second patch is needed, though. To me it looks like
libjava.exp:libjava_init initializes the various
forms of LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately, finding libgcc_s.so.
Can you tell me why this doesn't work?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-11 20:13 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-11 20:32 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2004-10-11 20:49 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2004-10-11 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-10-11 20:32 -------
See
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg02467.html
I don't know how to do --disable-fast-install for gcc.
--enable-fast-install is totally wrong for ELF. It should
never be used for any ELF targets.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-11 20:32 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2004-10-11 20:49 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-11 21:01 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-11 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 20:49 -------
I read that. What I observe is that .libs/gij is created
by the build. Then if I run gij (not .libs/gij), it creates
.libs/lt-gij.
My understanding is that --enable-fast-install is what makes
all this work as it does. .libs/gij has the install tree
in its DT_RPATH -- but that is ok since this executable is never
run from the build tree. It exists only so that installation
can be as simple as "cp".
.libs/lt-gij is relinked lazily, when gij is run. Its DT_RPATH
is:
opsy. readelf -d .libs/lt-gij |grep RPATH
0x0000000f (RPATH) Library rpath:
[/home/tromey/gnu/Trunk/build/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libjava/.libs:/home/tromey/gnu/Trunk/install/lib]
So to me it looks like we're missing an entry here for the libgcc_s.so
directory. So, probably, your first patch is the way to go... I'd like
a bona fide libtool expert to look at this though.
I still don't understand why the second patch is needed.
As for --disable-fast-install, did you try just passing that to the
top-level configure? (I didn't)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-11 20:49 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-11 21:01 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2004-10-11 21:27 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2004-10-11 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-10-11 21:01 -------
.libs/lt-gij is used by "make check". Try
# grep -i gij */*.exp
in libjava/testsuite.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-11 21:01 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2004-10-11 21:27 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-12 19:52 ` hjl at lucon dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-11 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-11 21:27 -------
I'm afraid I couldn't really parse that.
To me it looks like libjava_find_gij looks for
"gij" in the build directory. This in turn is
a shell script which, if needed, creates lt-gij.
The fact that the install tree is put in DT_RPATH
is, like I mentioned in comment #9, a problem.
For this we probably need your patch.
I suppose what I would really like to know is why
you needed the second patch. What is wrong with
the current code for setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH in
libjava.exp?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-11 21:27 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-12 19:52 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2005-08-17 3:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-08-17 18:10 ` hjl at lucon dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2004-10-12 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-10-12 19:52 -------
You are right. The second patch isn't needed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-12 19:52 ` hjl at lucon dot org
@ 2005-08-17 3:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-08-17 18:10 ` hjl at lucon dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-08-17 3:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-17 03:12 -------
What is the status of this bug (why is this still in waiting)?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij
2004-09-03 20:27 [Bug libgcj/17311] New: Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij hjl at lucon dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2005-08-17 3:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-08-17 18:10 ` hjl at lucon dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: hjl at lucon dot org @ 2005-08-17 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-08-17 18:06 -------
FWIW, the bug is still there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread