This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>
- Cc: Jie Zhang <jzhang918 at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:44:04 -0800
- Subject: Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
- References: <46EFBCC1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <46EFC383.email@example.com> <46EFC9E9.firstname.lastname@example.org> <46EFCEF9.email@example.com> <46EFCF7A.firstname.lastname@example.org> <46EFD236.email@example.com> <46EFDA4D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <474C0C52.email@example.com>
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> I've committed the following to take care of this. Neither -mfdpic nor
> -mid-shared-library are actually useful with bfin-elf toolchains, but by
> making them imply -msim, we can at least get these kinds of configure
> test executables to link.
My impression was that we'd developed the consensus that generic ELF
ports should not have a default board. (IIRC, Power and MIPS are like
that; if you don't say -msim explicitly, you get a link error.)
If -mfdpic doesn't make sense for Blackfin, shouldn't it just be an
error? Why accept it, but make it imply the simulator?
(650) 331-3385 x713