From owner-cvs-all Fri Sep 14 16: 7: 6 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C36937B406; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f8EN73a28584; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:07:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Message-Id: <200109142307.f8EN73a28584@freefall.freebsd.org> From: "David E. O'Brien" Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:07:02 -0700 (PDT) To: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libiberty Makefile X-FreeBSD-CVS-Branch: HEAD Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG obrien 2001/09/14 16:07:02 PDT Modified files: gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libiberty Makefile Log: Rev 1.10 bogusly tested the kernel version, not the libc version. The version of the kernel has no bearing on what is in libc. We now search for basename in libc to determin if we need to include the libiberty version in the build. This is all still a bit bogus as it will (like the sysctl method) cause basename.o to be linked into the cross-build as well as the host build. It would probably be better to test if we were doing the initial host build and unconditionally include that. Once we've generated the target libc we know that basename is available. (maybe test for $TOOLS_PREFIX or something). Submitted by: peter Revision Changes Path 1.11 +3 -10 src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libiberty/Makefile To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message