This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: h8300-coff vs h8300-rtems
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com
- Cc: GCC at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:53:31 -0600
- Subject: Re: h8300-coff vs h8300-rtems
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <3CC8319F.374F3EFE@OARcorp.com>, Joel Sherrill writes:
>
> HI,
>
> I have found the discrepancy between h8300-coff and h8300-rtems
> with regards to Fortran. The question is how best to resolve it.
> In the top level configure.in, there is this stanza around line
>
> *-*-rtems*)
> noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs target-libgloss ${libgcj}"
>
> and this one around line 766
>
> h8300*-*-* | \
> h8500-*-*)
> noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs ${libstdcxx_version} target-librx
> target-libgloss ${libgcj} target-libf2c"
>
> so *-*-rtems is being tripped before the CPU one. Thus it tries
> to build target-libf2c which is not supported. Should I add a
> stanza above *-*-rtems for h8300*-*-rtems* to cover this? Or
> add a nested case statement in *-*-rtems* to further eliminate
> target-libf2c?
>
> Either way, this should be a minor RTEMS specific fix which I
> would like to see in 3.1.
I have no strong opinion either way.
Note that for the H8 you'll also want to prevent it from building the
C++ runtime libraries.
jeff