From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24854 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2011 18:21:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 24845 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jun 2011 18:21:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (74.125.121.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:21:29 +0000 Received: from hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.2]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p53ILRJR022726 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:21:27 -0700 Received: from pxi2 (pxi2.prod.google.com [10.243.27.2]) by hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p53ILPsY019889 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:21:26 -0700 Received: by pxi2 with SMTP id 2so1590214pxi.24 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:21:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.83.8 with SMTP id g8mr362399wfb.146.1307125284300; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.212.11 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Ping:Re: Skip building target libiberty for arm*-*-linux-androideabi From: Jing Yu To: dj@redhat.com Cc: gcc-patches , "Joseph S. Myers" , Ye Joey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 Ping. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg02208.html On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Jing Yu wrote: > Based on discussion on another thread > (http://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg06627.html), > what Joseph recommended was ripping out all support for building > libiberty for the target side as it is not needed. Thus I doubt > skipping target-libiberty for all targets is acceptable. > I don't have the bandwidth to work on the ideal patch. Thus I am > wondering if we can skip target-libiberty for androideabi target > before the ideal patch is out. > > Thanks, > Jing > > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Ye Joey wrote: >> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Jing Yu wrote: >>> >>> =A0Building gcc-4.6 arm android toolchain fails because of an >>> incompatible function definition between libiberty and bionic. >>> >>> Thanking Joseph, I have learned that "there's no such thing as a >>> target libiberty" and we should rip all the target-libiberty rules >>> out. I don't know if someone is working on it. Before that patch comes >>> out, can we add arm*-*-linux-androideabi to the list of targets where >>> target-libiberty is skipped? >>> >> How about=A0skip libiberty for all targets then? >> >> - Joey >