On Sat, 2006-Jul-01 00:09:08 -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: >I'm wondering, why the bfd and related bits and pieces of binutils are built >to support only the architecture(s), that can natively run on the system? 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 thr order of 100), building them all is impractical and a waste of resources for virtually everyone who uses FreeBSD. >Why can't I use gdb or objdump on FreeBSD/i386 to analyze a core file, or a >binary from another FreeBSD or even from a non-FreeBSD system? You can if you install the relevant ports. >The tools themselves support that. The sources (bfd-vectors) for all other >supported architectures are part of the tree (under contrib/). So, why not >build them? 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. >If it really is SO much of a bloat, why do we install gdb, etc. in the first >place? I'm happy with buildworld building a toolchain that supports native development on FreeBSD. I have used FreeBSD for cross-development and I'm happy to manually install a toolchain to support the target I'm developing for. I'd be somewhat concerned if buildworld decided to build a toolchain that supported around several targets for each of around 100 different processors - the vast majority I'd never use. >P.S. What I also want is the /lib/libbfd.so and friends, so I (and the 15 >devel/*binutils ports) can build my own tools linking with it. Unfortunately, >that too remains impossible... 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. -- Peter Jeremy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:57 UTC