From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19125 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2004 21:27:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19069 invoked by uid 48); 11 Oct 2004 21:27:20 -0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041011212720.19068.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: java-prs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040903202714.17311.hjl@lucon.org> References: <20040903202714.17311.hjl@lucon.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libgcj/17311] Wrong libgcc_s.so.1 is used by lt-gij X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-q4/txt/msg00077.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- 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