weird limitation on the system's binutils
Mikhail Teterin
mi+kde at aldan.algebra.com
Sat Jul 1 19:08:37 UTC 2006
On Saturday 01 July 2006 07:55, Peter Jeremy wrote:
= IMHO, the FreeBSD base system should provide tools for doing native
= development - anything beyond that belongs in ports. Given that
= binutils supports quite an extensive range of targets (of the order of
= 100), building them all is impractical and a waste of resources for
= virtually everyone who uses FreeBSD.
I would agree with this myself, except that anything in the ports would have
to _duplicate_ or replace the system one. All of it -- not even just bfd --
because it is all linked statically.
The overhead of even a 100 extra "bfd vectors" for all is much smaller, than
the the full duplication overhead for those, who want to disassemble
an "obscure" object format -- or even one from another FreeBSD platform.
We support multiple human languages, each one needed by relatively few people.
> My reading of contrib/binutils suggests that files for targets not
> related to FreeBSD are in the exclude/delete list and aren't imported
> into the FreeBSD repository.
They are all here, although there are a lot fewer than 100 of them:
echo /usr/src/contrib/binutils/bfd/*-* | wc -w
74
> libbdf.a is built by /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libbfd/Makefile.
> That should be a fairly simple change to arrange for it to build and
> install the .so as well.
Installing both libbfd-s certainly would be a good start... As things stand,
every port needing it -- including various different compilers -- builds it
own version. This is, largely, explained by the GNU's stupidity of bundling a
different version with each tool (gdb, compiler), but the bundled bfds are
not THAT incompatible, and the system-installed version can include the
compatible superset...
-mi
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list