Re: [gentoo-alt] interix preserve-libs

[Fabian Groffen]

On 17-07-2009 09:01:14 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 17:43 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > Hi Markus,
> >
> > On 16-07-2009 17:02:03 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> > > i just (seemingly) finished preserve-libs support for x86-interix.
> > > attached is the svn diff against the modified tree, including the patch
> > > and the epatch...
> > >
> > > ok to commit, or do you want to integrate this into the prefix portage
> > > svn branch?
> >
> > It looks good to me, so I can commit it to the prefix branch.  Just one
> > question (two actually):
> > - is it really a good idea to hardcode the path to objdump?  (don't we
> >   have symlinks to that stuff in our Prefix?)
>
> hm. the problem is the following: prefix has it's own objdump (binutils
> build fine...), but that one does not know about the "microsoft special
> hacks" about shared libraries (RPATH, SONAME, NEEDED), so exactly what
> i'm looking for. /opt/gcc.3.3/bin/objdump is present in all interix
> installations which install the GNU SDK (which is all installations that
> want to build software :)).
>
> Alternatively i could remove objdump from binutils, and link to
> the /opt/gcc.3.3/bin one, if that feels better. (i can't just use native
> binutils, because "ar" at least is somewhat unusable with c++).
>
> > - you mention PECOFF is actually more closer, but that winnt uses
> >   different stuff but the same file; how is that going to work?  does
> >   Interix' objdump know something about .dll files or something?
>
> They share the basic file format ("container"), but have completely
> different contents. i'll have to do the same again (so a separate
> LinkageMapWinnt class), since objdump is not able to give usefull infos
> on .dll's... :( i will, for that purpose, have to write a small utility
> i can distribute with parity, which uses it's internal facilities to
> provide the required informations - thats not too much work, and parity
> has to be there anyway when building winnt binaries.

If the windows stuff will use another format, then I don't understand
the decision to call it ITX instead of PECOFF.  How about writing a
scan{elf,macho} brother that does the job?  e.g. scanpecoff and/or
scandll?
That way we don't need objdump at all, but use our own tool, that we use
furteron on the process as well, reducing your work to parse the
output of objdump in the bash code.

> Anything too hackish to make it into portage? ;) i guess it's the most
> clean way i can think of ATM...


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level