From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25412 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2002 12:50:01 -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 25389 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2002 12:50:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2002 12:50:00 -0000 Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Charybdis.suse.de [213.95.15.201]) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC43C14AE8; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:49:56 +0200 (MEST) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:13:00 -0000 From: Michael Matz To: Etienne Fortin Cc: Subject: Re: Porting GCC without a working assembler and need for libgcc and other libraries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg01414.txt.bz2 Hi, On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Etienne Fortin wrote: > Can someone tell me how I can build GCC so that NO runtime libraries are > build (not even libgcc) and in a way that the assembler is NOT needed (since > there's no assembler for the architecture). And next how can I create that > same GCC with the option -S always ON? You could also create a dummy "assembler" which simply outputs it's input again. So you .s and .o files would be the same, and only the "linker" would fiddle with these funny .o files (i.e. running them through your own assember, and doing on them whatever is necessary to produce an executable). This way there are less changes to gcc itself. And it behaves more like other architectures, which makes it again more appealing. Ciao, Michael.