This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>
- Cc: Jie Zhang <jzhang918 at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:14:25 -0800
- Subject: Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
- References: <46EFBCC1.6070200@gmail.com> <46EFC383.7020503@t-online.de> <46EFC9E9.7090201@gmail.com> <46EFCEF9.3060304@t-online.de> <46EFCF7A.2080704@gmail.com> <46EFD236.6080907@t-online.de> <46EFDA4D.3070006@gmail.com> <474C0C52.8050503@t-online.de> <474C8FA4.2040603@codesourcery.com> <474C95BA.1060807@t-online.de>
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> If -mfdpic doesn't make sense for Blackfin, shouldn't it just be an
>> error? Why accept it, but make it imply the simulator?
>
> Because all the target libraries fail to build if the configure tests
> don't link.
But why isn't that a problem with the target libraries or the way in
which GCC is being configured? Why don't we have that problem for MIPS
or Power, given that they don't link with a target board by default either?
I'm not trying to be rhetorical. I just want to understand what's going
on here because it sounded to me from your patch like we were making the
compiler accept options that don't make sense in order to work around
some problem -- and maybe that problem is what should really be solved.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713