From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22169 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2003 19:42:22 -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 22144 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 19:42:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 19:42:21 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19UAjs-0002pk-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:43:00 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19UAiz-0001rr-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:42:05 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Peter Barada Cc: zack@codesourcery.com, dank@kegel.com, pinskia@physics.uc.edu, wilson@tuliptree.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: cross-compilation documentation Message-ID: <20030622194204.GA7163@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Peter Barada , zack@codesourcery.com, dank@kegel.com, pinskia@physics.uc.edu, wilson@tuliptree.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <02F74B2F-A4D6-11D7-AD8C-000393A6D2F2@physics.uc.edu> <878yruf1pl.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <3EF5FACA.9020400@kegel.com> <87znkadj94.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <20030622193607.98A4D98DFD@baradas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030622193607.98A4D98DFD@baradas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg01891.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 03:36:07PM -0400, Peter Barada wrote: > > >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? Unless the code ends up _included_ in glibc. Or in any of the dozens of little applications built at the same time as glibc, for instance. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer