This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Is libc built by gcc?

From: Brian Dessent <brian at dessent dot net>
To: Ray Hurst <rhurst2 at cox dot net>
Cc: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:11:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Is libc built by gcc?
References: <f0bc0r$fab$1@sea.gmane.org> <46293CE9.CB0655FD@dessent.net> <f0bg9l$1s5$1@sea.gmane.org>
Reply-to: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org

Ray Hurst wrote:

> Ooops. A chicken and egg story.
> You're right. I'm using cygwin for windows XP and I assume gcc is using
> libc to build with. Running configure on glib-2.5 results in a not
> supported error.

No.  Cygwin does not use glibc at all, and glibc only works with Linux
(and the HURD.)  Cygwin provides its own libc implementation, based on
newlib for much of the stdio, string, and math parts.

Note that "libc" is a generic term, so saying "I assume gcc is using
libc" is meaningless; libc is the C library by definition, so gcc is
always using *some* libc.

Brian

References:
- Is libc built by gcc?
  - From: Ray Hurst
- Re: Is libc built by gcc?
  - From: Brian Dessent
- Re: Is libc built by gcc?
  - From: Ray Hurst

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]