public inbox for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Build for multi-platform
@ 2012-11-06 23:58 Colin Sim
  2012-11-07  0:33 ` Ian Lance Taylor
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Colin Sim @ 2012-11-06 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-help

Hi,

We would like our build system (either a dedicated server or development 
machines) to be able to build our system for multiple targets, 
specifically 32-bit and 64-bit variants. Our system has several 
dependancies on third party open source packages.

From experiments conducted, I know it's possible to build stand-alone 
applications (.exe) for both 32-bit and 64-bit provided the dependencies 
are there. Our preference is to not have both packages for both 32-bit and 
64-bit installed on all development machines.

Is there a way to build the packages without the library dependencies they 
need? That is, is there a way to specify to gcc/g++ or ld, the name of the 
library and symbols it would need without the actual library?

Regards,
Colin 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: Build for multi-platform
  2012-11-06 23:58 Build for multi-platform Colin Sim
@ 2012-11-07  0:33 ` Ian Lance Taylor
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2012-11-07  0:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Colin Sim; +Cc: gcc-help

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Colin Sim <Colin.Sim@crown.com> wrote:
>
> We would like our build system (either a dedicated server or development
> machines) to be able to build our system for multiple targets,
> specifically 32-bit and 64-bit variants. Our system has several
> dependancies on third party open source packages.
>
> From experiments conducted, I know it's possible to build stand-alone
> applications (.exe) for both 32-bit and 64-bit provided the dependencies
> are there. Our preference is to not have both packages for both 32-bit and
> 64-bit installed on all development machines.
>
> Is there a way to build the packages without the library dependencies they
> need? That is, is there a way to specify to gcc/g++ or ld, the name of the
> library and symbols it would need without the actual library?

The compiler needs to have the header files.  There isn't any simple fix there.

If you are linking statically, the linker needs the whole library.  If
you are linking dynamically, the linker only needs the library symbol
tables, it doesn't need the whole library.  You could use objcopy to
remove the code and data sections from the dynamic library, leaving
the symbol table.

Frankly, though, it seems error-prone.  Why do not want to simply
install the packages?

Ian

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2012-11-07  0:33 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-11-06 23:58 Build for multi-platform Colin Sim
2012-11-07  0:33 ` Ian Lance Taylor

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).