From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24685 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2006 15:40:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 24676 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2006 15:40:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from venus.cis.sac.accd.edu (HELO cis.sac.accd.edu) (209.184.112.199) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:40:08 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.75] (adsl-64-216-16-33.dsl.snantx.swbell.net [64.216.16.33]) by cis.sac.accd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k37Fe6hQ002610 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:40:06 -0500 Message-ID: <443687D6.3050504@linuxfromscratch.org> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:54:00 -0000 From: Bruce Dubbs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060225 SeaMonkey/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Building gdb from source References: <000801c65a55$21ffa580$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> In-Reply-To: <000801c65a55$21ffa580$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00101.txt.bz2 Dave Korn wrote: > Well, if you're replacing your binutils at the same time, what's the > problem? The old libs are about to be overwritten in any case! Actually, the user decides when to add gdb. > The point is, that a distro should have a consistent set of gcc, binutils > and gdb. Since binutils and gdb live in the same repository, if you either > take a consistent snapshot of the cvs, or if you take gdb and binutils > releases that are roughly-contemporary, they're bound to be 'in-sync' FAPP. > > So if you're building gdb to replace (or even to /be/) your system gdb, you > should already have chosen one that's compatible with your binutils version, > or you should be about to replace your binutils to match. Either way, > overwriting the old libs won't matter. >From my examination of gdb's source, it looks like it is using binutils-2.16.91 and the latest stable release of binutils is 2.16.1. Now this probably doesn't make any practical difference, but we really don't want our users replacing these files without knowing it. In any case, another editor pointed me to a workaround: make -C gdb install that does the right thing for us. I suppose the discussion from our point of view now is really moot, but there are some subtle bugs, harmless for the most part, in the implementation of binutils' bfd and libiberty build procedures with regard to the -disable-install-libbfd and --disable-install-libiberty switches. I've posted the issue on the binutils mailing list. -- Bruce