This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libf2c
- To: Dave Love <d dot love at dl dot ac dot uk>
- Subject: Re: libf2c
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 22:36:21 -0700
- cc: egcs at cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <rzqu3agfqys.fsf@djlvig.dl.ac.uk>you write:
> I'm afraid I don't understand building Fortran these days, but the new
> libf2c process doesn't look right to me. I did a bootstrap, and
> libf2c was configured with an installed compiler (an older gcc, as
> this is a Linux box), reading my site autoconf config.site and cache.
> It was then built with xgcc (as I expected).
Hmmm, that's definitely broken.
What *should* happen is the compiler should 3-stage via "make bootstrap",
then the runtime libraries (libstdc++, libio, libf2c) should be configured
using the target compiler.
Odds are we've just got a minor goof in either the toplevel make/configure
files or in the libf2c make/config files.
> Originally the configuration was careful to avoid
> potentially-misleading autoconf configuration files (including
> clobbering things with `make clean', contra GNU standards) and ensure
> it did everything with GCC_FOR_TARGET (or whetever the old make
> variable was called).
Yup. All this hackery should be able to be removed with the new
organization modulo bugs we've introduced.
> I can't immediately point to anything mixing
> the compilers can break but what work I've done on the runtime has
> always assumed the target compiler is used generally.
It fails for cross compilers :-) Which is one of the big benefits of
getting it out of the gcc subdir, it's easier to get these issues dealt
with correctly.
> [Sorry for getting this stuff wrong in the first place.]
No worries, we'll get it nailed down. :-)
jeff