Fix unresolved shared library dependency on binutils 2.23.

Fix unresolved shared library dependency on binutils 2.23.

It fixes unresolved dependency as follows:
> ldd content_shell
        ...
	libsql.so => not found
	libbase_i18n.so => not found
        ...

Some binutils 2.23 releases may or may not have new dtags enabled,
but they are all compatible with --disable-new-dtags,
because the new dynamic tags are not created by default.
https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.23/ld/Options.html#index-g_t_002d_002ddisable_002dnew_002ddtags-267

BUG=352046
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=265880

[dshwang, 2014-04-23 15:23:45]

https://codereview.chromium.org/249073003/diff/1/build/common.gypi
File build/common.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/249073003/diff/1/build/common.gypi#newcode3896
build/common.gypi:3896: ['binutils_version>=223', {
I'm not sure if 222 works also. Anyway, 223 work well on my machine using "GNU
assembler (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.23.52.20130913"

[Lei Zhang, 2014-04-23 18:14:08]

https://codereview.chromium.org/249073003/diff/1/build/common.gypi
File build/common.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/249073003/diff/1/build/common.gypi#newcode3896
build/common.gypi:3896: ['binutils_version>=223', {
On 2014/04/23 15:23:45, dshwang wrote:
> I'm not sure if 222 works also. Anyway, 223 work well on my machine using "GNU
> assembler (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.23.52.20130913"

I'm worried older 2.23 releases didn't have new-dtags enabled but newer 2.23
releases do. Maybe it's ok if they all take --disable-new-dtags.

Let me check this and get back to you.

[dshwang, 2014-04-23 20:05:23]

https://codereview.chromium.org/249073003/diff/1/build/common.gypi
File build/common.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/249073003/diff/1/build/common.gypi#newcode3896
build/common.gypi:3896: ['binutils_version>=223', {
On 2014/04/23 18:14:09, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2014/04/23 15:23:45, dshwang wrote:
> > I'm not sure if 222 works also. Anyway, 223 work well on my machine using
"GNU
> > assembler (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.23.52.20130913"
> 
> I'm worried older 2.23 releases didn't have new-dtags enabled but newer 2.23
> releases do. Maybe it's ok if they all take --disable-new-dtags.
> 
> Let me check this and get back to you.

Thank you for review.
I think omitting --disable-new-dtags does not break old binutils, because we
don't use this flag before https://codereview.chromium.org/196573022

This flag is introduced for brand-new binutils in thirdparty/binutils
I don't think anyone use binutil 2.24 before the CL.

[dshwang, 2014-04-23 20:14:52]

https://codereview.chromium.org/249073003/diff/1/build/common.gypi
File build/common.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/249073003/diff/1/build/common.gypi#newcode3896
build/common.gypi:3896: ['binutils_version>=223', {
Ah, my previous comment does not make sense.

The core of concern is that this CL try to introduce --disable-new-dtags in
binutils 2.23.
I could not check it yet because googling binutils shows me a lot of wastes.

[dshwang, 2014-04-23 20:19:43]

according to ld 2.23 man page;
https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.23/ld/Options.html#index-g_t_002d_002d...
--enable-new-dtags
--disable-new-dtags
This linker can create the new dynamic tags in ELF. But the older ELF systems
may not understand them. If you specify --enable-new-dtags, the dynamic tags
will be created as needed. If you specify --disable-new-dtags, no new dynamic
tags will be created. By default, the new dynamic tags are not created. Note
that those options are only available for ELF systems.

"By default, the new dynamic tags are not created" means --disable-new-dtags is
by default.

[Lei Zhang, 2014-04-23 21:01:46]

lgtm

Can you add a comment to mention some 2.23 releases may or may not have new
dtags enabled, but they are all compatible with --disable-new-dtags ?

https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2013-01/msg00184.html is the patch that
enabled new dtags by default. 2.23.0 was released in November 2012, so it didn't
have it, but 2.23.52, from September 2013 does.

[dshwang, 2014-04-24 03:58:29]

On 2014/04/23 21:01:46, Lei Zhang wrote:
> lgtm

Thank you for review.

> 
> Can you add a comment to mention some 2.23 releases may or may not have new
> dtags enabled, but they are all compatible with --disable-new-dtags ?

Done.

> 
> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2013-01/msg00184.html is the patch that
> enabled new dtags by default. 2.23.0 was released in November 2012, so it
didn't
> have it, but 2.23.52, from September 2013 does.

interesting.

[dshwang, 2014-04-24 03:58:34]

The CQ bit was checked by dongseong.hwang@intel.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-24 03:58:49]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/dongseong.hwang@intel.com/249073003/1

[Lei Zhang, 2014-04-24 04:57:03]

On 2014/04/24 03:58:29, dshwang wrote:
> On 2014/04/23 21:01:46, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > lgtm
> 
> Thank you for review.
> 
> > 
> > Can you add a comment to mention some 2.23 releases may or may not have new
> > dtags enabled, but they are all compatible with --disable-new-dtags ?
> 
> Done.

You didn't upload a new patch set with the comment, no big deal though.

[dshwang, 2014-04-24 05:01:14]

The CQ bit was unchecked by dongseong.hwang@intel.com

[dshwang, 2014-04-24 05:02:08]

On 2014/04/24 04:57:03, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2014/04/24 03:58:29, dshwang wrote:
> > On 2014/04/23 21:01:46, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > > lgtm
> > 
> > Thank you for review.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Can you add a comment to mention some 2.23 releases may or may not have
new
> > > dtags enabled, but they are all compatible with --disable-new-dtags ?
> > 
> > Done.
> 
> You didn't upload a new patch set with the comment, no big deal though.

Ah, I misunderstand you requests comment in patch description.
I'll update soon.

[dshwang, 2014-04-24 05:10:30]

The CQ bit was checked by dongseong.hwang@intel.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-24 05:13:22]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/dongseong.hwang@intel.com/249073003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-04-24 08:24:56]

Change committed as 265880