From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23370 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2013 14:34:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23361 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jul 2013 14:34:04 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:34:04 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6UEXv5O008572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:33:57 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-140.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.140]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6UEXt3L030391; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:33:55 -0400 Message-ID: <51F7CED2.5000001@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:34:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Starner CC: Bruce Korb , FX , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "jwakely.gcc@gmail.com" Subject: Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file References: <51F66CA9.4040803@redhat.com> <51F67A08.2070709@redhat.com> <51F7719B.9050502@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00458.txt.bz2 On 07/30/2013 01:52 PM, David Starner wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> "We" is the GCC community. "We" really want multilibs to be built so >> they get tested as much as possible. It's in the best interest of >> all GCC users that this happens. > > "We" really want Ada to be built so that it gets tested as much as > possible. "We" really want ARM to be built so that it gets tested as > much as possible. I don't see the distinction. Those who need > multilibs support should be responsible for making sure that it works > right. Presumably enough people do need it. Those that don't should > have to shoulder the burden for those who do. The burden of typing "--disable-multilib". >> So don't write one. Then you're likely to be proved right. > > So what you're saying is that "we" don't care if people can easily > build "our" compiler. No. I'm saying that you care enough to argue but not enough to write a patch. If you really wanted to change the status quo that's what you'd have done by now. Andrew.