[Bug bootstrap/50229] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Can't cross compile for i686-apple-darwin10 from x86_64-redhat_linux

["egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229

Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #27 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #21)
> (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #20)
> > This PR appears to report two different issues:
> >   1. cross-compiler targeting Darwin
> 
> cross-compilers targeting Darwin <= 9 are possible using odcctools.
> 
> For "the future"
> I am working on a set of GCC patches and a GAS port that solves part of the
> problem for newer cases.  I intend to post these before stage#1 ends (but
> time is short - esp. with trunk trashed on darwin at the moment).
> 
> However the static linker remains an issue (I have a build of ld64-127.2
> which supports Darwin10, and ppc*) … however, this needs to be
> forward-ported to the latest published sources for ld64 before it will
> support "current" Darwin.  
> 
> In any event, it would be the User's responsibility to obtain a suitable SDK
> for the target - by downloading the appropriate Xcode and extracting the SDK
> as needed.
> 
> in short: "can't be expected to work until there's a set of Darwin
> 'binutils' supporting > darwin 9". (working on providing that).
> 
> >   2. cross-compiler hosted on Darwin
> 
> I do this all the time - it's possible to cross from x86_64-darwin12 ->
> powerpc-darwin9, for example (assuming one has the relevant cctools and
> ld64, and enough patience).
> 
> I have also built native-crosses [x86-64-darwin12=build powerpc-darwin8
> host/target] for the record.
> 
> Darwin works just fine as a host for cross-compilers to Linux.
> 
> (building your own sysroot - in particular GLIBC can be a trial, but if you
> make a sysroot from a standard distro, it's not hard).
> 
> in short (2) is very definitely "works for me"

So does this bug need to stay open then?