From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29987 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2014 18:19:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 29895 invoked by uid 89); 20 Nov 2014 18:19:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: smtp.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:19:00 -0000 From: Mike Frysinger To: Roland McGrath Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: do not abort EABI check for bootstrapping Message-ID: <20141120181950.GB3743@vapier.wh0rd.info> Mail-Followup-To: Roland McGrath , libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <1416468692-4317-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> <20141120175902.426FF2C3B2F@topped-with-meat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141120175902.426FF2C3B2F@topped-with-meat.com> X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00551.txt.bz2 --ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 968 On 20 Nov 2014 09:59, Roland McGrath wrote: > I have no particular opinion about this one change and it's up to Joseph = to > approve it or not. But it seems quite fragile to tweak individual checks > like this to support some arcane configure-sort-of-works case. I don't > understand the scenario you are trying to support. I've never heard of > doing any step with libc without having a compiler at all. The way I'm > familiar with going about bootstrapping is to do just all-gcc and > install-gcc first, and then build libc. some (many?) targets require some C library headers before they can build f= or=20 the target at all. we used to do cross-compiling where we'd skip the C lib= rary=20 headers, but the amount of patching/hacks we had to add to GCC got=20 unmaintainable, and the code base got more and more hostile to the concept= =20 (just search for inhibit_libc). how exactly are you building the first GCC= =20 w/out any C library headers ? -mike --ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-length: 819 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUbjDGAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WB/Q4QALIeIdWnajh6WG5nBsg057d0 yWW+WQhJz2wzLbm3tkSXCay78rRSOP9VhW/rwbFuZZQ+O/tWNQrabcW73+RvO6mN UTG2KACxLQLWUs/yrlKXu2eEgWFzzuDjGJ2TV0WmHUrMM/Hptu6+va6EzQN8aEcY 5yolaowP/EztE7XyV+sXIkRyDST8DDzJ8VAg3qHKxWAlJmAJoZt67saVNOmsP34i gLoSla5RNG1Y2sJ3VTKafBo0lHN3thg03r0R/K52Ka/ibJba2FsVGc9mc4esbsys RFoCGnEqJCv8oDYCCjxdprLMIe58Odo+f/CINSASB3n18V47jDm2MSTyp59GTF84 uzF01uQzrDVJ4cAN6+vCIkDh3KxxpOqCZj5nx5ozto7jnIT7XQMYDNfrxv8Nfy8c 0cX59o/S9X3dpvELmb/4JBqrY6UZvBQe+41tDN9/GGeoH2vPp+cTvhCVvgmE42Hx O/ScF1BbeQN40foL9mTXZsJoFsmhlNrC5sAm9kaqHOMCr8gnPncsooyOVfd2JvoW pwxNdmeGeidl1kZfXM8SNm3dQGtJ8ziI2H4SxRy+mL1/zzY+e08tQU2uC+Kbh2Tz KmofSyk463fvOjf081/0PoSXlX4ZDsA6y5y/BNnln3tFuEgqdRM6MvKHGX0LRAha fwFO6dO+Oudc1YkKuKYN =uajt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6--