From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16701 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2012 22:37:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 16692 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2012 22:37:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp06.smtpout.orange.fr (HELO smtp.smtpout.orange.fr) (80.12.242.128) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:37:37 +0000 Received: from treguer.localnet ([90.32.112.232]) by mwinf5d41 with ME id RAdb1i00K50tzZm03AdbeE; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:37:36 +0100 From: "Yann E. MORIN" To: crossgcc@sourceware.org Subject: Re: libstdc++ configure fail due to -EL option Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/3.2.1-treguer; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Mike Frysinger , Bryan Hundven , Zhenqiang Chen , Khem Raj References: <201201231708.18054.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201201231708.18054.vapier@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201201232337.34642.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> Mailing-List: contact crossgcc-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: crossgcc-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 Zhenqiang, Bryan, Khem, Mike, All, For now, the original issue is on gcc trunk, and so crosstool-NG is not yet impacted. Let's revisit the issue after the gcc-4.7 release (4.7 is not even branched). On Monday 23 January 2012 23:08:16 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday 23 January 2012 16:08:39 Bryan Hundven wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > LDFLAGS should take the form as needed by the compiler driver. i.e. > > > -Wl,-EL. > > > > Well, we'd get the same error if we pass -Wl,-EL to ld, where that > > would fix it for passing to gcc. > > yes, but generally speaking, you should not be invoking the linker. > everything should be going through the compiler driver. I don't care if everything "should be going through the compiler driver" or directly through the actual linker. What I find dubious is to pass the LDFLAGS to the compiler driver. The LDFLAGS are for the linker. If one wants to use the compiler driver to do the link, I don't care, but then the LDFLAGS should first be appropriately munged to be suitable for the compiler driver, and not used as-is. That's a job to be done in the Makefile. It's in large parts the fault of gcc (the package) for providing a compiler _driver_ in the first place. *Either* it does its job, and only its job, to drive the _compilation_ (and preprocessing), and it is not used for other phases, such as linking, *or* it also accepts to _fully_ impersonate the linker. Currently, the gcc compiler driver recognises parts of the linker flags (eg. -static), but chokes on others (eg. --fatal-warnings), which makes it useless to effectively be called in-lieu of the linker. And what's worse, some packages are properly calling the linker 'ld', and needs LDFLAGS suitable for 'ld', while other packages use the (deffective?) gcc driver, and need LDFLAGS escaped with -Wl. Which makes it impratical to use in a homogeneous build system. That's sad... :-( Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------' -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq