From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24605 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2011 21:43:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 24596 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Nov 2011 21:43:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-yx0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-yx0-f169.google.com) (209.85.213.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:43:37 +0000 Received: by yenm10 with SMTP id m10so989814yen.0 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:43:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.73.71 with SMTP id j7mr13867247pbv.116.1321047816769; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:43:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.73.71 with SMTP id j7mr13867218pbv.116.1321047816598; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:43:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from coign.google.com ([2620:0:1000:2301:f2de:f1ff:fe40:72a8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p10sm33030532pbd.15.2011.11.11.13.43.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:43:36 -0800 (PST) From: Ian Lance Taylor To: linasvepstas@gmail.com Cc: Mike Frysinger , libc-ports@sourceware.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, GLIBC Devel Subject: Re: gcc vs. glibc bootstrapping of libgcc_eh.a References: <201111092149.49393.vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Linas Vepstas's message of "Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:27:18 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 Linas Vepstas writes: > Thanks Mike, silly me, it seems that crosstool_ng is exactly what I need! > > Off-topic, but .. anyone have a clue about why my canadian-cross of > gcc is picking up its own internal limits.h, instead of glibc's > limits.h? Since gcc's limits.h doesn't have =E2=80=98SSIZE_MAX=E2=80=99 w= hich > gcc/config/host-linux.c wants. I suppose I can just google the > answer, can't I? To clarify, your Canadian Cross should always be using gcc's internal limits.h, so that is not surprising. The right question is why the internal limits.h does not have a #include_next of the glibc limits.h (via syslimits.h). I don't know the answer in your case, but I do know that the test for whether there is a system limits.h, and that therefore gcc should use a #include_next, is a fragile one. Ian