From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 950 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2003 04:29:00 -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 23181 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2003 04:23:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 2003 04:23:59 -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 19UIsp-0003Vx-00; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:24:47 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19UIrw-0005Bh-00; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:23:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:10:00 -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: <20030623042352.GB19910@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> <20030622194204.GA7163@nevyn.them.org> <20030623024805.6D3E998DFD@baradas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030623024805.6D3E998DFD@baradas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg01904.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:48:05PM -0400, Peter Barada wrote: > > >> 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. > > what 'dozens of little applications' are built by glibc, and are they > installed and used by glibc? Things like rpcgen, iconv, et cetera. You also run the risk of getting parts of libgcc linked into libc and related libraries. If those copies don't support unwinding, you lose later. > 1) first bootstrap compiler that has *no* libgcc which is used for the: > 2) first glibc configurd/built only to install-headers > 3) second bootstrap compiler can now be built(and build ligbcc) since the > headers are in place > 4) second glibc that is fully built using the second bootstrap > compiler > 5) full gcc with c++ using the second bootstrap compiler. > > Is there a more efficient method that *doesn't* require building two > bootstrap compilers or effectively building glibc twice? The way I'm describing and Dan K is also describing works. I use it daily. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer