Building GCC

Building GCC

[Flop Bucket]

HI,

A quick simple, I hope, question about building gcc..

If I do:

1.  tar xvf gcc-3....

2. mkdir build

3.  export PREFIX=$(pwd)/build

4. cd build

5.  ../gcc-3/configure --prefix=$PREFIX

6.  make

Is it correc that *no* changes are made to the source tree then?  Everything 
is done inside build?  So if I want to undo everything and start over, I can 
just "cd build && rm -rf *" ?

Thanks

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Re: building gcc

[Kai Ruottu]

Myhuong Nguyen wrote:
> My computer (SGI octane2, Irix 6.5) seems not to have any compilers, 
> cc or gcc, how do I build my first gcc on it? Will the gcc binaries 
> overcome this problem?
>   
Yes!  Please use Google to find those "bootstrap GCC" binaries for 
Irix6.5!  For instance
using the words "GCC for Irix"....

building gcc

[Myhuong Nguyen]

Hi!

My computer (SGI octane2, Irix 6.5) seems not to have any compilers, 
cc or gcc, how do I build my first gcc on it? Will the gcc binaries 
overcome this problem?

Thanks.
Myhuong

Re: Building GCC

[Nathan Sidwell]

Frank Schafer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> maybe someone knows this.
> 
> What is the difference between CFLAGS and BOOT_CFLAGS, and what is the
> difference between LDFLAGS and BOOT_LDFLAGS if I'm running ``make ....
> bootstrap'' ?

the BOOT_Foo variants are used when building the the bootstrap compiler with the 
system's current compiler.  The other ones are used when building gcc with itself.

> 
> What is the meaning of the -nostdinc compiler switch?

Don't look in the standard places for the standard headerfiles.  Generally you 
need this if you want explicit control over search paths.

nathan

-- 
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Building GCC

[Frank Schafer]

Hi,

maybe someone knows this.

What is the difference between CFLAGS and BOOT_CFLAGS, and what is the
difference between LDFLAGS and BOOT_LDFLAGS if I'm running ``make ....
bootstrap'' ?



What is the meaning of the -nostdinc compiler switch?

Thanks in advance
Frank

building gcc

[Dave Murphy]

hi,

I've been building gcc for a couple of embedded targets using powerpc and
arm.

could anyone advise me on the best way to go about adding a custom
linkscript and crt0 for the machines I'm targetting. I believe I need to add
some things to the specs file to specify these at link time but I'm not sure
of the correct way to do this.

I'd also like to know what the correct method is for allowing global
constructors. Is crt0 supposed to drop through the init sections before
reaching main rather than calling main directly as so many people seem to do
when customising gcc for a specific target.


Dave

Re: Building gcc

[Frank Schafer]

Curtis R Anderson wrote:

> Frank Schafer wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I'm building a complete GNU/Linux system from scratch. The first turn,
> > building everything needed statically linked went fine. Now I'll need to
> > make the static build.
> >
> > During the static build there were already several include files
> > installed. The glibc docs say to remove everything in ``/usr/include''.
> > Can I remove this ( or better initialize it containing only the kernel
> > headers ) before the build, if everything is static?
>
> I did this some time ago, and recalled that I followed the instructions
> presented in the "Linux From Scratch" guide. Whatever they had worked
> quite well.
>
> > Oh, before I forget ... will I be able to build everything with 3.0.x?
> > It is reported, that ( at least glibc ) things cannot be built with it.
> > I got a reply, that there is a patch for 2.95.3 to proper compile glibc,
> > but nobody can tell me WHERE it is.
>
> It probably would be best to keep older compilers around like 2.95.3 for
> the kernel and libraries. 2.95.2 probably will work out, although egcs
> 2.91 or whatever would be best for the kernel.
> --
> Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", SP 2.5?, KoX
> No digital wireless, no xDSL, no pagers. Keeps the riff-raff out.
> http://www.madbbs.com/users/gleepy/    ICQ: 50137888
> mailto:gleepy@intelligencia.com        UTM: PS 7036 7315, zone 17

Thanks. Meanwhile I've realized, that the gcc 3-series can't be used for
glibc. Even gcc2.95.3 needs a patch to build properly. I've found this patch
in the source trees of several distributors. It's also on
ftp.linuxfromscratch.org.
I don't want to have different compilers. Many advise ( and I agree ), that
everything should be compiled with ONE compiler.
So I'll stuck with the patched gcc-2.95.3.
It's not so fine, that the gcc people and the glibc people don't synchronize
their work -- but what can we do with this??

Regards
Frank

Re: Building gcc

[Curtis R Anderson]

Frank Schafer wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> I'm building a complete GNU/Linux system from scratch. The first turn,
> building everything needed statically linked went fine. Now I'll need to
> make the static build.
> 
> During the static build there were already several include files
> installed. The glibc docs say to remove everything in ``/usr/include''.
> Can I remove this ( or better initialize it containing only the kernel
> headers ) before the build, if everything is static?

I did this some time ago, and recalled that I followed the instructions
presented in the "Linux From Scratch" guide. Whatever they had worked
quite well.

> Oh, before I forget ... will I be able to build everything with 3.0.x?
> It is reported, that ( at least glibc ) things cannot be built with it.
> I got a reply, that there is a patch for 2.95.3 to proper compile glibc,
> but nobody can tell me WHERE it is.

It probably would be best to keep older compilers around like 2.95.3 for
the kernel and libraries. 2.95.2 probably will work out, although egcs
2.91 or whatever would be best for the kernel.
-- 
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", SP 2.5?, KoX
No digital wireless, no xDSL, no pagers. Keeps the riff-raff out.
http://www.madbbs.com/users/gleepy/    ICQ: 50137888
mailto:gleepy@intelligencia.com        UTM: PS 7036 7315, zone 17

Building gcc

[Frank Schafer]

Hi there,

I'm building a complete GNU/Linux system from scratch. The first turn,
building everything needed statically linked went fine. Now I'll need to
make the static build.

During the static build there were already several include files
installed. The glibc docs say to remove everything in ``/usr/include''.
Can I remove this ( or better initialize it containing only the kernel
headers ) before the build, if everything is static?

What are theese ``usr/include/g++-v3/'' and
``/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.0.1/include'' -things. Can ( or
should ) I remove theese too?

Oh, before I forget ... will I be able to build everything with 3.0.x?
It is reported, that ( at least glibc ) things cannot be built with it.
I got a reply, that there is a patch for 2.95.3 to proper compile glibc,
but nobody can tell me WHERE it is.

Thanks for any help
Frank

Re: building gcc

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Sep 26, 2001, "Govind Vinjamuri" <gvinjamu@cceb.upenn.edu> wrote:

> /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/2.95.1/include/math.h:5:
> math.h: No such file or directory

Looks like you're missing /usr/include/math.h, that is part of some
Solaris development package.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me

building gcc

[Govind Vinjamuri]

On solaris8 trying to build gcc3.0. I am using gcc package, which I
installed from the Sun cd, to compile. I have this error when I try to
"make"
make
make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/gcc-3.0/libiberty'
if [ x"" != x ]; then \
  gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -O2 -I. -I./../include  -W -Wall
-Wtraditional -pedantic  floatformat.c -o pic/floatformat.o; \
else true; fi
gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -O2 -I. -I./../include  -W -Wall -Wtraditional
-pedantic floatformat.c
In file included from floatformat.c:21:
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/2.95.1/include/math.h:5:
math.h: No such file or directory
make[1]: *** [floatformat.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/gcc-3.0/libiberty'
make: *** [all-libiberty] Error 2

Thanks in advance
--
Govind

Re: Building GCC

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Sep 14, 2000, "Michael J. McGillick" <mike@dunamis.ne.mediaone.net> wrote:

> ../../gcc-2.95.2/binutils/configure[1935]: flex:  not found.

It looks like you need lex or flex.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me

Building GCC

[Michael J. McGillick]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4068 bytes --]

Good Morning:


I did a fresh install of HP-UX 11.00 on a PA-RISC machine - Model
9000/712/80.  I also applied the June 2000 extensions CD to make sure it has
all of the latest updates.  IÂ’m trying to get GCC built on this machine.
Here are the steps I followed:

·	I downloaded gcc-2.95.2.tar.gz from the GNU site.
·	I downloaded binutils-2.10.tar.gz from the GNU site.
·	I extracted both files into their respective directories.
·	I then copied from the binutils-2.10 directory the following directories
and placed them in the gcc-2.95.2 directory:
o	bfd
o	binutils
o	gas
o	ld
o	intl
o	opcodes

According to the directions in the GCC documents, by including these
directories, these will get built along with the compiler.  Again, this is a
clean system with absolutely no utilities on it other than what is shipped
out by HP.

I created a separate build folder as the instructions suggest, and I cd into
it.  I then type the following command:

   ../gcc-2.95.2/configure

The configure scripts chugs away happily for a few minutes.  It appears that
itÂ’s going through checking to see if my system has various things.  The
script starts off like this, and IÂ’m not sure if this is important or not:

Configuring for a hppa1.1-hp-hpux11.00 host.
*** This configuration is not supported in the following subdirectories:
     ld
    (Any other directories should still work fine.)
Created "Makefile" in /downloads/build-directory using "mh-frag"
(Bundled) cc: warning 480: The -g option is available only with the C/ANSI C
product; ignored.
Configuring intl...
creating cache ../config.cache
checking for a BSD compatible install...
../../gcc-2.95.2/intl/../install-sh -c
checking how to run the C preprocessor... cc -E
checking whether make sets ${MAKE}... yes
checking for gcc... cc
checking whether the C compiler (cc -g ) works... yes
checking whether the C compiler (cc -g ) is a cross-compiler... no
checking whether we are using GNU C... no
checking for ranlib... ranlib
checking for POSIXized ISC... no
checking for ANSI C header files... yes
checking for working const... no
checking for inline... no
checking for off_t... yes
checking for size_t... yes
checking for working alloca.h... yes
checking for alloca... yes
checking for unistd.h... yes
checking for getpagesize... yes
checking for working mmap... no

The script continues to chug along, with only 1 warning showing up similar
to the one about the -g option not being available until it gets to this
point:

checking if the linker (/bin/ld) is GNU ld... no
checking whether the linker (/bin/ld) supports shared libraries... yes
checking command to parse /bin/nm -p output... yes
checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... relink
checking for /bin/ld option to reload object files... -r
checking dynamic linker characteristics... hpux11.00 dld.sl
checking if libtool supports shared libraries... no
checking whether to build shared libraries... no
checking whether to build static libraries... yes
checking for objdir... .libs
creating libtool
loading cache ../config.cache
checking for gcc... (cached) cc
checking whether the C compiler (cc -g ) works... yes
checking whether the C compiler (cc -g ) is a cross-compiler... no
checking whether we are using GNU C... (cached) no
checking whether cc accepts -g... (cached) no
checking for bison... no
checking for byacc... no
checking how to run the C preprocessor... (cached) cc -E
checking for flex... no
checking for lex... no
../../gcc-2.95.2/binutils/configure[1935]: flex:  not found.
checking for flex... lex
checking for yywrap in -ll... yes
checking lex output file root... ../../gcc-2.95.2/binutils/configure[2023]:
lex:  not found.
configure: error: cannot find output from lex; giving up
Configure in /downloads/build-directory/binutils failed, exiting.

Here, the script just stops.

Any ideas what IÂ’m doing wrong here?  IÂ’m probably misunderstanding a lot of
what needs to be done.  Is there something that has to be installed on the
machine ahead of time, and canÂ’t be built initially?

- Mike

Building GCC

[Immanuel Andrew]

I've got 2 problems. It maybe trivial but I need the help very badly.


1, When building GCC (on Linux), I notice that the main header files (such
as stdio.h) are not installed by "make install". Should I specify any
options during compilation or does it come from some other package ?

2,Can GCC be built on a Linux machine that has no compiler ?

    I get the following error while running configure:

../gcc-2.95.1/configure: gcc: command not found
*** The command 'gcc -o conftest -g -O2   conftest.c' failed.
*** You must set the environment variable CC to a working compiler.


Thanks.

Andrew

Re: Building GCC

[Tim Prince]

>the main header files (such
>as stdio.h) are not installed by "make install". Should I specify any
>options during compilation or does it come from some other package ?

The usual assumption is that you have installed some running version (not
necessarily up to date) of the gcc development system for your linux
distribution, typically from an RPM, including any kernel-headers packages and
libraries you intend to use with the compilers you build.

>Can GCC be built on a Linux machine that has no compiler ?

not until you take care of the above
Tim Prince
tprince@computer.org

Re: Building GCC

[Tim Prince]

>the main header files (such
>as stdio.h) are not installed by "make install". Should I specify any
>options during compilation or does it come from some other package ?

The usual assumption is that you have installed some running version (not
necessarily up to date) of the gcc development system for your linux
distribution, typically from an RPM, including any kernel-headers packages and
libraries you intend to use with the compilers you build.

>Can GCC be built on a Linux machine that has no compiler ?

not until you take care of the above
Tim Prince
tprince@computer.org

Building GCC

[Immanuel Andrew]

I've got 2 problems. It maybe trivial but I need the help very badly.


1, When building GCC (on Linux), I notice that the main header files (such
as stdio.h) are not installed by "make install". Should I specify any
options during compilation or does it come from some other package ?

2,Can GCC be built on a Linux machine that has no compiler ?

    I get the following error while running configure:

../gcc-2.95.1/configure: gcc: command not found
*** The command 'gcc -o conftest -g -O2   conftest.c' failed.
*** You must set the environment variable CC to a working compiler.


Thanks.

Andrew