This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Aw: Re: How to compile gcc toolchain with special sysroot correctly?
- From: "Johannes Lorenz" <johannes89 at mailueberfall dot de>
- To: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: "Andrew Haley" <aph at redhat dot com>, "Kai Ruottu" <kai dot ruottu at wippies dot com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:57:54 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Aw: Re: How to compile gcc toolchain with special sysroot correctly?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Sensitivity: Normal
@Andrew:
I copied these crt*.o libraries, but now, it complains that it is missing stdio.h. I really guess it would be better to link to the whole old glibc. Is there any good trick to tell gcc: Search in your sysroot, but if you can not find it, try in "/usr/include" ? (somehow the opposite of "-I")
@Kai:
> Are you trying to build the target Linux system from scratch? The
> produced glibc runtime parts (shared
> libs) being installed onto the originally unexisting target system? If
> not then your goal is "conceptually
> wrong"
I don't know what you mean, but I am trying to install glibc to another "root" on the same target system. I have gcc 4.4, but want to have 4.7 (on the same target), so I tried to compile a new toolchain in ~/local, using my gcc 4.4.
> In a simple Ubuntu 12.04 to OpenSuSE 12.2 cross compiler case using a
> sysroot'ed glibc for the target system
> one of course would produce only the target binutils and the target GCC
> for the $host (that usually being a
> totally different arch, different CPU, and system, for instance
> Solaris2.10).
Ok, I don't want to compile to a different target. I only mentioned openSuSE to say that the versions of binutils, gcc and glibc work on "some system". But I just want to compile on $host for $host ;) Both are Ubuntu.
> If this isn't clear then one should ask : "Do people REALLY
> replace the target C library in native
> binutils and GCC builds?" It would sound "sane" to rebuild the system
> glibc with the updated binutils and
> GCC afterwards, they are newer and should produce a better and quicker C
> library, or how? But please
> believe me, the native binutils and GCC builders don't try to replace
> the target C library in '/lib*', '/usr/lib*',
> '/usr/include' etc. Neither all the X11 libraries in the system! So why
> on earth any cross GCC builder would
> do that if all the target libraries are already there, prebuilt and tested?
So you'd say, unlike Andrew, that I should not compile a new glibc. I need a new libstdc++, I hope this will be compatible with the old glibc. But if I really want to compile a new glibc, you think this is impossible/very difficult?
Thanks and regards,
Johannes
--
Diese E-Mail wurde aus dem Sicherheitsverbund E-Mail made in
Germany versendet: http://www.gmx.net/e-mail-made-in-germany