This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patch: create a BUILD libiberty.a
- To: law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Patch: create a BUILD libiberty.a
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:58:22 -0800
- CC: ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu, rth at cygnus dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <767.950761834@upchuck>
> cc: geoffk@cygnus.com, rth@cygnus.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Reply-To: law@cygnus.com
> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 21:30:34 -0700
> From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
>
> In message <200002161934.OAA19308@caip.rutgers.edu>you write:
> > > From: Richard Henderson <rth@cygnus.com>
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:00:36PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
> > > > egcs/i386-ibm-linux-gnu/libiberty
> > > > egcs/sparc-sun-solaris2.6/libiberty
> > > > egcs/powerpc-unknown-eabi/libiberty
> > > > egcs/powerpc-unknown-eabi/soft-float/libiberty
> > > > egcs/powerpc-unknown-eabi/ca/libiberty
> > > > egcs/powerpc-unknown-eabi/ca/soft-float/libiberty
> > >
> > > I like this a lot better than egcs/build-libiberty/ or whatever.
> > > r~
> >
> >
> > The problem with this is that when host==build==target, you get
> > overlapping directory names.
> But in that case we only need to build one set of libraries (ie, we don't
> need separate host, build & target).
Yes... kind of. What we really want to do is bootstrap libiberty as
well as gcc.
IMHO, the bootstrap stuff should be done in the top-level Makefile.
That way, we can bootstrap the libraries we need, and make, gas, ld,
and so on, if they're in the source tree, which is what you really
want to do anyway.
> > Then multilibbing is hosed, especially
> > if you built host/build libiberty with cc because the Makefile will
> > think that the multilibbed target/libiberty is already built with the
> > gcc just bootstrapped, whereas in reality it was created with cc.
> Just as important -- we can't necessarily proper multilib when building
> with cc since the options necessary to create specific sets of libraries
> are likely going to be different from what gcc thinks they should be.
>
> OK. I see what you're getting at. At least for now I think we need to
> keep the host, build & target libraries separate.
For the moment, yes.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>