This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libstdc++ in a combined tree
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > I see -- but why did we set GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES? Don't we only do that
> > when we've failed to link things?
>
> No, it's explicit:
>
> if test "$build" != "$host"; then
> # We are being configured with some form of cross compiler.
> GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE=false
> case "$host","$target" in
> *-*-darwin*,*-*-darwin*)
> . . .
> ;;
>
> *)
> GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
I hadn't realised there was such configuration separate from
crossconfig.m4. This setting of GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES is out of date in that
we do now expect to be able to do link tests for glibc and uClibc targets
and there's been no sign of complaints about problems arising from this.
(I don't think you can ever build a correct shared libstdc++ on a glibc
system without the shared glibc already being there to link the shared
libstdc++ against. And the functions present in uClibc depend on how it
was configured, making link checks essential.)
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)