This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: gcc vs. glibc bootstrapping of libgcc_eh.a


On 11/9/2011 12:28 PM, Linas Vepstas wrote:
I've run into a bootstrapping issue which I'd like to solve
"the right way", instead of continuing to hack around it.

Briefly: I can't build glibc without libgcc_eh.a, which is
provided by gcc. However, libgcc_eh.a is not built, unless
I configure gcc with --enable-shared. But doing so causes
gcc to attempt to build libgcc_s.so, which fails because it
wants to link to libc.so, which hasn't been built yet.  And
so it goes....

The "obvious" fix, to me, is to change the libgcc/Makefile.in
to always build libgcc_eh.a (and install it) Would such a
patch be acceptable?

BTW, this is for the "hexagon" architecture, being cross-built.
Perhaps there's some other work-around that I missed...

(our current work-around is to build uClibc first, install
that, and then finish building gcc, then build glibc. Seems
pretty yucky to me.)

Take a look at the "gcc and glibc from scratch" section of http://www.tilera.com/scm/source.html . I don't know if this will handle your problem, but we do end up with libgcc_eh.a when the dust settles, and it avoids having to build uClibc :-)


--
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]