From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30068 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2003 14:10:50 -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 5659 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2003 13:07:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO baradas.org) (66.166.225.55) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 2003 13:07:34 -0000 Received: by baradas.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 4007D98DFD; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:07:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Barada To: dank@kegel.com Cc: drow@mvista.com, zack@codesourcery.com, pinskia@physics.uc.edu, wilson@tuliptree.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-reply-to: <3EF67F7F.3070805@kegel.com> (message from Dan Kegel on Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:18:07 -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> <20030622193607.98A4D98DFD@baradas.org> <20030622194204.GA7163@nevyn.them.org> <20030623024805.6D3E998DFD@baradas.org> <3EF66E11.3080509@kegel.com> <20030623025952.CE49398DFD@baradas.org> <3EF67F7F.3070805@kegel.com> Message-Id: <20030623130734.4007D98DFD@baradas.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:14:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg01910.txt.bz2 >> But this fragment *requires* a cross-compiler to build it. > >Hmm. That's odd. I do almost the same thing, but I don't require a cross-compiler. >Maybe the step you're missing is the following kludge: > make sysdeps/gnu/errlist.c > mkdir -p stdio-common > touch stdio-common/errlist-compat.c >That goes between the configure and the make of glibc, and keeps anything >real from being compiled by the install-headers. If that's in the source tree then its *really* a kludge and won't work too well for me since I keep my source in a CVS controlled tree. >> ... I'm hoping people see that there *is* a >> problem making blanket statements that "its perfectly normal to insist >> that the system headers be installed when building the bootstrap". > >Indeed. > >> I don't know what the solution is, but I trying to figure out the >> minimal set of changes necessary to make a(or most/if not >> all -linux toolchains). That way hopefully with the next release of >> gcc/glibc I won't have to go through this mess all over again... > >I think the powers that be are suggesting that the fix for gcc-3.5 >might be to separate out the building of libgcc from the building of >gcc. Hmm, and then separate out the building of anything in glibc >that requires libgcc into a separate target. Then we could do > make bootstrap gcc without libgcc > make whatever parts of glibc that don't depend on libgcc > make real gcc including libgcc > make whatever parts of glibc that depend on libgcc That's what I described as *two* bootstrap compilers and *two* configure/builds of glibc... -- Peter Barada peter@baradas.org