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:

>> 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
>> Blackfin?
> It sounds more complicated than what we do.  We just build bfin-elf,
> build uClibc with it, and build up the bfin-*linux* compilers.  Just
> three simple steps.  What do you do for ARM uClinux?

I'm not sure of the exact details.  It could be that your way is
simpler.  Perhaps on other systems the ABIs don't quite match, or
something.  In any case, I think that's immaterial.

>> 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?
> No native compilers - I don't think the linux nommu memory manager would
> be very happy about running gcc.  Running the testsuite is bad enough.

Yeah, I didn't think so, but I was trying to think about what could be
different.  I've CC'd Richard Sandiford, as I discussed some of the MIPS
stuff with him at one point.

Note that libstdc++/ carefully avoids linking except for
$GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE.  It's a design property that you should not need to
link.  Where in libstdc++ is it requiring linking?

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]