This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] missing #ifndef inhibit_libc in gcc/config/rs6000/linux.h
- From: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>
- To: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Cc: Gernot Hillier <gernot dot hillier at siemens dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:21:35 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] missing #ifndef inhibit_libc in gcc/config/rs6000/linux.h
- References: <200310281705.30364.gernot.hillier@siemens.com> <200310282159.28333@enzo.bigblue.local>
Franz Sirl wrote:
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 17:05, Gernot Hillier wrote:
Hi!
gcc/config/rs6000/linux.h misses support for the libchack thus making it
impossible (or at least not nice) to bootstrap a cross compiler.
This also solves http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12813
Ok for mainline? TIA!
Changelog:
2003-10-28 Gernot Hillier <gernot.hillier@siemens.com>
* config/rs6000/linux.h (MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR): Don't
define this at all when -Dinhibit_libc is used.
Hmm, in my eyes this patch just makes it easier to build broken cross
compilers and we shouldn't do that. There are proper linux cross build
instructions on the web, eg. http://kegel.com/crosstool/, that don't use and
need inhibit_libc IIRC.
inhibit_libc isn't a hack per se; it's an internal part of the implementation of
--without-headers and --with-newlib. Perhaps the proposed patch
solves a problem even for users who are simply setting --without-headers
and/or --with-newlib?
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8180 if you're interested
in why some users feel they have to set -Dinhibit_libc
(gcc's configure used to be broken, and didn't always set it when it should).
- Dan
--
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045