Re: gcc vs. glibc bootstrapping of libgcc_eh.a

[Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>]

On 11/9/2011 12:28 PM, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> I've run into a bootstrapping issue which I'd like to solve
> "the right way", instead of continuing to hack around it.
>
> Briefly: I can't build glibc without libgcc_eh.a, which is
> provided by gcc. However, libgcc_eh.a is not built, unless
> I configure gcc with --enable-shared. But doing so causes
> gcc to attempt to build libgcc_s.so, which fails because it
> wants to link to libc.so, which hasn't been built yet.  And
> so it goes....
>
> The "obvious" fix, to me, is to change the libgcc/Makefile.in
> to always build libgcc_eh.a (and install it) Would such a
> patch be acceptable?
>
> BTW, this is for the "hexagon" architecture, being cross-built.
> Perhaps there's some other work-around that I missed...
>
> (our current work-around is to build uClibc first, install
> that, and then finish building gcc, then build glibc. Seems
> pretty yucky to me.)

Take a look at the "gcc and glibc from scratch" section of 
http://www.tilera.com/scm/source.html .  I don't know if this will handle 
your problem, but we do end up with libgcc_eh.a when the dust settles, and 
it avoids having to build uClibc :-)

-- 
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com