From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7220 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2003 19:36:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7212 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 19:36:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO baradas.org) (66.166.225.55) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 19:36:08 -0000 Received: by baradas.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 98A4D98DFD; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:36:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Barada To: zack@codesourcery.com Cc: dank@kegel.com, pinskia@physics.uc.edu, wilson@tuliptree.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-reply-to: <87znkadj94.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> (message from Zack Weinberg on Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:06:47 -0700) Subject: Re: cross-compilation documentation References: <02F74B2F-A4D6-11D7-AD8C-000393A6D2F2@physics.uc.edu> <878yruf1pl.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <3EF5FACA.9020400@kegel.com> <87znkadj94.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> Message-Id: <20030622193607.98A4D98DFD@baradas.org> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:36:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg01890.txt.bz2 >Yes, probably. But Dan raises a valid point. I wonder if it would >make sense to disable the unwind library entirely when inhibit_libc >is true. The trouble with that is I don't know what unwind-related >things are lurking in corners of glibc. All this talk is aboutn trying to get a 'bootstrap' compiler useful to build glibc. Once glibc is build, the standard cross-compiler build method is to go back and build up a complete compiler(that includes the unwind stuff). So not having the unwind library shouldn't impose any problems on *building* glibc. Running glibc is another matter. What am I missing here? -- Peter Barada peter@baradas.org