From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Sherrill To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: 970901 - cross problem with libio/gen-params Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 10:30:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <199709031716.NAA16865@subrogation.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1997-09/msg00101.html On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > I don't know if this is the problem, but here is a potential problem > which might cause the symptoms you are reporting. Sounds like this is the culprit. I am trying your suggestion now. > The current development sources of the binutils generate nm-new rather > than nm.new. This is for easier use on Windows systems, so that we > can generate nm-new.exe without worrying about the multiple extensions > in nm.new.exe (it's true that nm.new.exe will work on new MS file > systems, but it's easier to sidestep the whole issue for the benefit > of old 8.3 file systems). Unfortunately binutils 2.8.1 actually builds nm.new ld.new and strip.new. :( > The top level Makefile.in in the egcs release looks for nm-new. If > you are using this with, e.g., binutils 2.8.1, which produces nm.new, > then the top level Makefile.in won't find the nm program in the build > directory. That will cause it to use nm from your path instead. It looks like this is enought o get the build past this point. > I don't know if this is really an egcs problem; the problem will only > arise if you try to mix egcs with the binutils 2.8.1 release in the > same directory tree. This was the first egcs snapshot I could not build one-tree style with egcs. > When the egcs CVS server is up and running, I hope to start putting > the development binutils releases on it as well. At that time, it > will be possible to get a single consistent tree. Does this mean that we will eventually be looking at egcs being a full toolset tree? --joel