Libiberty

Libiberty

[Bill Cunningham]

    I haven't found anything in the docs that I see that explains the
libiberty library. Can this be compiled without having to compile a whole
new compiler? I am running 3.4.6 and what to cross compile for a pdp-11. I
just want to compile the extra support and that's all.

Bill

Re: Libiberty

[DJ Delorie]

>     I haven't found anything in the docs that I see that explains
> the libiberty library.

You didn't find the libiberty documentation?  It's separate from the
gcc documentation, but available on the gcc docs web page.

> Can this be compiled without having to compile a whole new compiler?

Er, yes, since that's what we do each time we build it for the build
and host machines.  Only the target libiberty is built with the
just-built compiler.

> I am running 3.4.6 and what to cross compile for a pdp-11. I just
> want to compile the extra support and that's all.

Extra support for what purpose?  Are you trying to use libiberty with
your own application?

Re: Libiberty

[Bill Cunningham]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DJ Delorie" <dj@redhat.com>
To: <billcu1@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Libiberty


> 
> Please don't reply to me personally, use the mailing list.

Sorry I just pressed reply. You personal address must have been there.

Bill

libiberty

[Bill Cunningham]

    Everytime I compile gcc I see that libiberty is being compiled. Is this
a needed library and if not how can I switch it off? I'm using glibc-2.1 and
I'd like to figure out compiling 2.3 and I've done it before so I just have
to remember how. I want to cut down on all that compile time.

Bill

RE: libiberty

[Dave Korn]

On 02 May 2006 14:09, Bill Cunningham wrote:

>     Everytime I compile gcc I see that libiberty is being compiled. Is this
> a needed library 

  Yes.  Gcc uses the support functions it provides.  It's compiled and
statically linked in to the new gcc.

>  I'm using glibc-2.1 and
> I'd like to figure out compiling 2.3 and I've done it before so I just have
> to remember how. 

  You've lost me there.  I thought you said you were compiling gcc?  Or do you
mean you're doing it as part of a combined-tree-build?

  In any case, libiberty is vital.  And small and quick to build.  'fraid I
don't have much useful advice on how to cut down your build times except maybe
to use a --disable-checking compiler.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: libiberty

[Mike Stump]

On May 2, 2006, at 6:08 AM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>     Everytime I compile gcc I see that libiberty is being compiled.  
> Is this
> a needed library and if not how can I switch it off? I'm using  
> glibc-2.1 and
> I'd like to figure out compiling 2.3 and I've done it before so I  
> just have
> to remember how. I want to cut down on all that compile time.

cd gcc && make doesn't rebuild libiberty.  I use that to avoid  
recompiles.

egcs, Irix6 linking o32-libiberty.a with n32-stage2/3 binaries ...

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

Hi Jim,

	I'd like to get your opinion on a problem I'm having on Irix6
when building egcs.  (This is cc'ed to the egcs list so everyone is
welcome to comment.)  I've summarized the main issues below. 

	The central problem arises when attempting to use libiberty.a
to link binaries.  Libiberty.a is built with the stage1 compiler.  The
problem I have occurs when I use cc for stage1.  By default, Irix6 cc
uses a different ABI than gcc so I can't link (o32 ABI) libiberty.a
with stuff built in stage2/3 (n32 ABI).

	Right now, I've made sure egcs never needs anything from
libiberty.a so none of the links with it pull in any of its modules. 
But if I make egcs use libiberty.a by nuking xmalloc from toplev.c, I
get the following error:

 > ld: FATAL 112: cannot link old 32-bit object with -n32 link:
 > 	../libiberty/libiberty.a(xmalloc.o).
 > collect2: ld returned 4 exit status

	Now if I use "cc -n32" for stage1, I can get it to work.  But
there are some problems with this.  I looked in egcs/config/mh-irix6
and found this:

 > # Specify the ABI, to ensure that all Irix 6 systems will behave the same.
 > # Also, using -32 avoids bugs that exist in the n32/n64 support in some
 > # versions of the SGI compiler.
 > CC = cc -32

	So it seems to be saying that there are bugs in n32 so we
can't use it?  Note the file already sets cc to use the -32 flag
(o32).  However egcs ignores this setting!  (Confused yet?)  It just
goes ahead and sets CC to either "cc" or "gcc" depending on what is
available.  I think this is a side effect of when we decided to let
autoconf choose CC.

	So we have the following issues:

1.  If Irix6 cc is used for stage1, should we add -n32 so when it
builds libiberty.a it is link compatible with stage2 binaries?

2.  Is "cc -n32" support truly buggy, or can we use it?

3.  If cc is used for stage1, libiberty.a is not optimized, it only
gets -g passed to it.  Do we care?  (This is a generic problem, not
an irix6 specific one.)

4.  Assuming we go with -n32, why is egcs ignoring the CC setting in
config/mh-irix6 and how do we fix it?  (This doesn't seem to be Irix6
specific either.)

5.  Maybe another way to go is to build libiberty.a for each stage.
We could build a symlink tree in egcs/gcc/libiberty and move it into
stageN so it is rebuilt every stage.  This would solve the linking
problem because libiberty.a would use the same ABI as the binaries it
is linked with.  It would also get us optimized versions of the
functions in there even when cc is used for stage1.

	Any insight you could provide would be appreciated.

		Thanks,
		--Kaveh

PS: Jeff already recommended against item 5 above and instead wants to
do something like passing a flag to make libiberty.a link compatible. 
However I am cautious because of the n32 bugginess comment above and
also because this means libiberty.a won't be optimized.  (I don't know
if that is significant though.) So I am seeking more information.  Thanks.
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Icon CMT Corp.

libiberty

[Alex Buell]

Following up on someone's posting about libiberty, this question has been
bugging me for a while. Why does so many software (i.e egcs, gcc,
binutils, gdb) comes with their own libiberty sources?

Cheers,
Alex
--
 /\_/\  Legalise cannabis now! 
( o.o ) Grow some cannabis today!
 > ^ <  Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.

http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - *new* - rewritten for text browser users!

Linux tahallah 2.1.130 #64 SMP Thu Nov 26 22:58:37 EST 1998
Two Intel Pentium Pro 166MHz processors, 331.78 total bogomips, 48M RAM
System library 2.0.104

Re: libiberty

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < Pine.LNX.4.05.9812021936100.5310-100000@tahallah.demon.co.uk >you 
write:
  > Following up on someone's posting about libiberty, this question has been
  > bugging me for a while. Why does so many software (i.e egcs, gcc,
  > binutils, gdb) comes with their own libiberty sources?
Because each package has its own release schedule.


jeff