multiple definition of `__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx'

b. f. bf1783 at
Tue Mar 1 08:37:28 UTC 2011

On 3/1/11, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen at> wrote:
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>> b. f. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun 27 Feb 2011 at 12:24:06 PST Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>>> As is clear from, in almost every case now in use,
>>> USE_FORTRAN sets _USE_GCC, which sets CC, CPP, and CXX to the proper
>>> values.  Also, it sets USE_BINUTILS where appropriate, which sets LD,
>>> etc.  The problem is rather with libtool, particularly in the link
>>> mode, where it may not respect the choice of compiler and toolchain.
>>> This problem has been remarked, for two years or more, in the mailing
>>> lists and forums, when people discuss the use of compilers other than
>>> the base system compiler.  With the recent updates, it is more
>>> obtrusive, and several ports that were building successfully with
>>> default settings are now broken.  This needs to be fixed, and it would
>>> be better to fix libtool than to add a bunch of ad-hoc fixes to
>>> individual ports.
> OK, this problem was more subtle than I originally thought.  The error I
> pointed out doesn't occur consistently, but it does occur in the context
> of building vis5d+.
> But I have a patch that definitely fixes libtool enough for me.  What do
> you guys think?  This perhaps doesn't fix all the problems, but maybe it
> can act as a model to fix them all.

libtool caches more than just the compiler name.  It also stores the
path to various utilities (ar, as, ld, etc.), various compiler flags,
compiler search directories, (pre|post)dep objects, etc.  These aren't
always used, but they may sometimes be important, and they vary among
the different compilers in ports, so I think that any modifications
should take these into account. One of the problems is that the
upstream developers didn't think that (outside of cross-building,
which is handled a bit differently) more than one toolchain would be
in use on a given system.  On my system I adopted the expedient of
modifying and adding separate per-compiler libtool
ports.  That's not the prettiest way of handlng this problem either,
and it is awkward for the libltdl ports, so I'm not saying that this
method should be adopted.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list