This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Build libgcj, libgcj-tools, and libffi as shared libraries on Windows
- From: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>
- To: "Aaron W. LaFramboise" <aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com>
- Cc: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:13:22 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Build libgcj, libgcj-tools, and libffi as shared libraries on Windows
- References: <48B0BD19.8080300@aaronwl.com> <49E02E0F.6040503@gmail.com> <49E0D010.4070106@aaronwl.com> <49E0DFE1.60905@gmail.com> <49E11107.1080808@aaronwl.com>
Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> - What does this have to do with the top-level LDFLAGS? I didn't
>> change them
>> because I don't want cc1 and cc1plus to also have 128meg of stack, do I?
>
> Look at config/mh-mingw, where this is set in LDFLAGS for the entire
> build. A while back, someone or other decided that this was the right
> thing to do. This value should be propagated into gcc/java, the same
> way that it is for everything else, but for some weird reason, it
> doesn't propagate through the build machinery. The value that is there
> is large enough for jc1.exe to compile libjava.
>
> I think the right thing to do is fix that bug, rather than just hacking
> it to use the flag that it should already be using, if you see what I mean.
I notice that those flags get applied to everything in stage1 (xgcc, cc1,
gen* et al) and not to stages 2 or 3. Are you sure that isn't intendtional?
cheers,
DaveK