Static link problems?

ok… I KNOW this isn’t a SDL issue, but I wanted to ask here to see
if anyone else has seen this before.

(To head off the ineveitable question about why I want to statically
link… I want to provide a version of my game’s executable that doesn’t
rely upon installed .so files…)

I recently switched to gcc 3.1.1 (because of an optimization bug I found
in 2.96 unofficial) since then I added a static build of the game I’m
working on. When I try to statically link, in addition to many
undefined symbol messages (from libraries that I’m sure already are
being linked in) I also am seeing alot of messages as follows (which I
suspect may be CAUSING the undefined symbols).

/usr//bin/ld: Dwarf Error: Invalid or unhandled FORM value: 14.

Has anyone seen this before?

Thanks,

-Loren

El 25 Aug 2002 23:38:17 -0700
Loren Osborn <linux_dr at yahoo.com> escribi?:

I recently switched to gcc 3.1.1 (because of an optimization bug I found
in 2.96 unofficial) since then I added a static build of the game I’m
working on. When I try to statically link, in addition to many
undefined symbol messages (from libraries that I’m sure already are
being linked in) I also am seeing alot of messages as follows (which I
suspect may be CAUSING the undefined symbols).

GCC 3.x is still considered beta and has numerous bugs.

GCC 2.96 is a nonexistant version, a mix between 2.95 and some very early 3.0
code made by RedHat. It has also numerous bugs and misbehaviours and is
unrecommended even by RedHat.

For an accurate, production GCC compiler, you better switch back to 2.95.3.

Regards,
Wizord.

Groan… Yeh… I figured that out AFTER installing 3.1.1. :frowning: The
problem is that I tried to return to 2.96 (at least as a test case) and
all the libs installed from 3.1.1 got in the way of me linking
anything… I will say that I’ve had alot more trouble in the last
couple months with gcc than I have in several years of using it…

Has anyone here had any luck SUCCESSFULLY downgrading gcc? I would like
to hear any tips from someone who’s done it first, before I try it
myself. Also is the gcc team still releasing maintenance revisions for
2.95.x, as I have found at least one bug that I believe to be
longstanding (PR/7714)…

Thanks again for everyone’s help,

-LorenOn Mon, 2002-08-26 at 02:39, Jos? Luis S?nchez wrote:

GCC 3.x is still considered beta and has numerous bugs.

GCC 2.96 is a nonexistant version, a mix between 2.95 and some very early 3.0
code made by RedHat. It has also numerous bugs and misbehaviours and is
unrecommended even by RedHat.

For an accurate, production GCC compiler, you better switch back to 2.95.3.

Regards,
Wizord.

El 26 Aug 2002 04:01:20 -0700
Loren Osborn <linux_dr at yahoo.com> escribi?:

Groan… Yeh… I figured that out AFTER installing 3.1.1. :frowning: The
problem is that I tried to return to 2.96 (at least as a test case) and
all the libs installed from 3.1.1 got in the way of me linking
anything… I will say that I’ve had alot more trouble in the last
couple months with gcc than I have in several years of using it…

Has anyone here had any luck SUCCESSFULLY downgrading gcc? I would like
to hear any tips from someone who’s done it first, before I try it
myself. Also is the gcc team still releasing maintenance revisions for
2.95.x, as I have found at least one bug that I believe to be
longstanding (PR/7714)…

Sorry but it seems you can’t obtain a valid 2.95 package for RedHat.

If you wish to get back to 2.96, you simply erase all installed files for gcc
3, and reinstall your last 2.96 package using rpm -Ui --force .rpm

I think RedHat has made a poor job by releasing that unofficial, buggy compiler
version. Even some parts of the linux kernel are faulty compiled by that
compiler. Some modules simply doesn’t work. Try to avoid it as hell.

2.96 was made by RedHat when they noticed GCC 3.0 were not in time for their
next major release. They needed some parts of the new gcc 3.0 (particularly,
the IA64 target not present in gcc 2.95) so they took part of the incomplete
3.0 code and mixed with the (then current) 2.95.1.

I usually don’t recommend about any distro, but I switched out RedHat due to
this kind of “features”.

Regards,
Wizord.

That “feature” was in Mandrake also… :frowning:

-LorenOn Tue, 2002-08-27 at 08:58, Jos? Luis S?nchez wrote:

I usually don’t recommend about any distro, but I switched out RedHat due to
this kind of “features”.

What I’ve done is just install gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.2 in
/usr/local/gcc- and then when I want to use one I do

export PATH=/usr/local/gcc-/bin:${PATH}
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/gcc-/lib:${LD_LIBRARY_PATH}

Seems to work alright for me.On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 10:58, JosX Luis SXnchez wrote:

El 26 Aug 2002 04:01:20 -0700
Loren Osborn <linux_dr at yahoo.com> escribi?:

Groan… Yeh… I figured that out AFTER installing 3.1.1. :frowning: The
problem is that I tried to return to 2.96 (at least as a test case) and
all the libs installed from 3.1.1 got in the way of me linking
anything… I will say that I’ve had alot more trouble in the last
couple months with gcc than I have in several years of using it…

Has anyone here had any luck SUCCESSFULLY downgrading gcc? I would like
to hear any tips from someone who’s done it first, before I try it
myself. Also is the gcc team still releasing maintenance revisions for
2.95.x, as I have found at least one bug that I believe to be
longstanding (PR/7714)…

Sorry but it seems you can’t obtain a valid 2.95 package for RedHat.

If you wish to get back to 2.96, you simply erase all installed files for gcc
3, and reinstall your last 2.96 package using rpm -Ui --force .rpm

I think RedHat has made a poor job by releasing that unofficial, buggy compiler
version. Even some parts of the linux kernel are faulty compiled by that
compiler. Some modules simply doesn’t work. Try to avoid it as hell.

2.96 was made by RedHat when they noticed GCC 3.0 were not in time for their
next major release. They needed some parts of the new gcc 3.0 (particularly,
the IA64 target not present in gcc 2.95) so they took part of the incomplete
3.0 code and mixed with the (then current) 2.95.1.

I usually don’t recommend about any distro, but I switched out RedHat due to
this kind of “features”.

Regards,
Wizord.


SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl