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?


Ray Hurst wrote:
Brian Dessent wrote:
Ray Hurst wrote:

Is libc built by gcc?

Maybe you could elaborate as to what you're *actually* trying to do.


By process of deduction, if libc is written in C then it has to be
compiled by *some* C compiler.  On linux systems, the libc is the GNU C
library (glibc), and glibc is written in C, and gcc is the C compiler,
thus libc is compiled by gcc.

But that is just one specific instance, it is not a general rule.  What
you seem to be asking is whether libc is part of gcc, and the answer to
that is no, it's completely separate.  gcc does not contain a C library
because gcc is used with too many various platforms to make this
maintainable.  gcc uses whatever C library comes with the system, and
given that gcc has been ported to at least two or three dozen platforms,
there is a long list of various C libraries that gcc could potentially
be used with.  If you were using gcc on e.g. Solaris then the libc would
have been written/maintained by Sun and built with Sun's C compiler.

Brian

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.
Ray



glibc is for linux, not cygwin.
What you need is newlib.


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