New: binutils prior to 2.21 have a sysroot bug in ld
https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=3049
Summary: binutils prior to 2.21 have a sysroot bug in ld
Product: buildroot
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Other
AssignedTo: unassigned at buildroot.uclibc.org
ReportedBy: rick at sloservers.com
CC: buildroot at uclibc.org
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Created attachment 2839
--> https://bugs.busybox.net/attachment.cgi?id=2839
Patch I used to test with binutils-2.20.1
I ran into problems using buildroot to cross-compile mpc (and gcc-4.5.x for which mpc is a dependency). The build would fail and the cross-compile-ld would complain that it couldn't find /lib//libc.so.0
It turns out this is a bug in ld from binutils that was fixed in binutils 2.21:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/625320
Basically ld ignores the sysroot path when absolute library paths are given, which causes errors when cross-compiling.
This issue affects any package that uses absolute library paths, such as mpc and others.
The fix (which is basically this
http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=195936) ought to be added to the buildroot patches for binutils versions prior to 2.21.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Buildroot] [Bug 3049] binutils prior to 2.21 have a sysroot bug in ld
https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=3049
--- Comment #1 from Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> --- the patch hasnt been merged upstream, so why do you think 2.21 is fixed ?
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Buildroot] [Bug 3049] binutils prior to 2.21 have a sysroot bug in ld
In reply to bugzilla at busybox.nethttps://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=3049
--- Comment #2 from Rick <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #1)
Quoted 1 line
the patch hasnt been merged upstream, so why do you think 2.21 is fixed ?
I thought I had read that somewhere but I closed my windows and can't find that reference. If it's not fixed in 2.21 then I misunderstood or misread something.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Buildroot] [Bug 3049] binutils prior to 2.21 have a sysroot bug in ld
In reply to bugzilla at busybox.nethttps://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=3049
--- Comment #3 from Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> --- perhaps you interpreted the "fixed in ubuntu binutils-xxx" as "fixed upstream"
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Buildroot] [Bug 3049] binutils have a sysroot bug in ld
In reply to bugzilla at busybox.nethttps://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=3049
Rick <[email protected]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|binutils prior to 2.21 have |binutils have a sysroot bug
|a sysroot bug in ld |in ldSignature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Buildroot] [Bug 3049] binutils have a sysroot bug in ld
In reply to bugzilla at busybox.nethttps://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=3049
Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED--- Comment #4 from Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]> 2012-10-21 21:07:41 UTC --- Fixed in git by Gustavoz, thanks.
Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.