From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-74409-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 30804 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2016 13:44:39 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 30697 invoked by uid 89); 4 Nov 2016 13:44:38 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mail-vk0-f51.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date
         :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=jQ0aEhVBfLJgHcLeP79jsb6FTeB6ylJLNvaGmqkFkuk=;
        b=jTcMydYLWwbBOSL4N4lq0+E+N62eYzyeOAaE5dKeqnswzh4Oh2RXmPYnhgzKic+LnW
         0D+5oZDbug0LC8lgPzLxkVr9WZq63sJ+y0jUPF1moTVtLqNbTD0L63jL5SGYd1ekjtzr
         qDjXRqWZSRVzdKgfoLLoTzCeLqIIZTnNLzkw+mqEXDv2mWmn0VOZb35UIYAaxGwozro+
         XZYrk/jAtHhKHPvpMa50EExfqmOqJLBd3x9RJC0hEzHU1HslnIEeJeBUuX33N69RY6lX
         4+TwR0clDt2Bx4ujHUch+hessYFvQPifXkgyBPhM/lzDm037AOvdkxQyrlu8QooCUpl0
         DoyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveCe58EhaXGA+9bF1YHvIIeGrclAdvzEJtjH/vh8/fjBTcnMoapbCGYmVsq6c1sH3hc
X-Received: by 10.31.218.68 with SMTP id r65mr10210240vkg.28.1478265492437;
        Fri, 04 Nov 2016 06:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Building cross-toolchain for microblaze
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611040240470.20687@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
 <f5608edb-228f-da96-229e-381a387105b7@linaro.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611041306220.1065@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <f97f7896-22de-37f7-de6a-8d83cd1ef831@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:44:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611041306220.1065@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00162.txt.bz2



On 04/11/2016 11:08, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> 
>> I could build a workable toolchain, at least for glibc building, by
>> configuring GCC with both '--disable-sjlj-exceptions'  and 
>> '--disable-shared'.  I did not dig into the issue, but it was already
>> reported on maillist this same issue.
> 
> The *first* GCC works to build glibc.  The problem is with the second one, 
> with shared libraries and C++ support (and separate libgcc_eh, which is 
> what actually results in the undefined references), since you want to 
> rebuild with such a second compiler before running the testsuite (the 
> expectation is that a bootstrap compiler will produce a correct glibc, but 
> not a build tree suitable for testing in).

Indeed and I could not get so far as well on this specific target.
For microblaze I basically do sanity glibc build checkswith first GCC.