This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Build fail
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Kai Ruottu <karuottu at mbnet dot fi>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 09 Feb 2007 07:39:28 -0800
- Subject: Re: Build fail
- References: <41127.10.129.41.10.1171009907.squirrel@www.cse.iitb.ac.in> <16083-56154@sneakemail.com> <37721.10.129.41.10.1171012441.squirrel@www.cse.iitb.ac.in> <f7b109350702090138u32bbbf37v3b6b936c3a25e5ec@mail.gmail.com> <45CC4B29.6030801@mbnet.fi>
Kai Ruottu <karuottu@mbnet.fi> writes:
> Ok, the traditional "evolutionary" method is to not reinvent the wheel
> with the already tested target components but let then be as they are
> and produce only the stuff required for the new $host, the GNU
> binutils and the GCC sources. NOT the target C libraries because
> they already are there for the existing targets! The Kegel's idealism
> says that also all these MUST be built with the new GCC. The glibc,
> the X11 libraries, the Gnome libraries, the KDE libraries, the termcap,
> the ncurses,.... Horrible "bolshevism/bullshitism" I would say....
What in the world are you talking about?
crosstool is a one stop shop for people who don't want to figure out
how everything fits together. Given that, it clearly must build the
target libraries. It can't assume that they already exist.
I'm sorry crosstool doesn't fit your philosophical notions (which are,
moreover, incorrect as stated). If you have something substantive to
say about crosstool--like, say, it doesn't work, or doesn't do what
people want--then say that.
Ian