This is the mail archive of the 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: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES

Bernd Schmidt wrote:

>>> But why isn't that a problem with the target libraries or the way in
>>> which GCC is being configured?  Why don't we have that problem for MIPS
>>> or Power, given that they don't link with a target board by default either?
> That's not something I can answer, being unfamiliar with both targets.
> Maybe they don't build/need a default multilib for "no particular target"?

I'm pretty certain that both do have a default multilib for a lowest
common denominator CPU, and that you have to provide explicit options to
link with it.

> We have two uses for the bfin-elf compiler - building standalone
> applications, and bootstrapping uClibc for
> bfin-uclinux/bfin-linux-uclibc.

Most targets just do the usual dance of building compilers and libraries
interleaved appropriately.  For example, we build ARM uClinux compilers
without ever building an ARM ELF compiler.  Why can't you do that for

> For the latter, we need -mfdpic and
> -mid-shared-library multilibs, to at least get a libgcc.  This always
> worked since what is now "-msim" was default behaviour, but it started
> to fail the libstdc++ configury once Jie changed that to use
> target-specific linker scripts.

I really think that we ought to compare with what happens with MIPS or
Power and figure out what's different.  Are you by any chance
configuring a native compiler, rather than a cross?


Mark Mitchell
(650) 331-3385 x713

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