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

Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> In any case, I think this is something that ought to be decided as a
>> global policy for GCC and its run-time libraries, not something that
>> differs between ports.  In particular, if run-time libraries are allowed
>> to depend on linking in their configure tests, that's something everyone
>> should know.
> For GNU/Linux, we decided some time ago that libstdc++ configuration would 
> require link tests in order to identify the precise functions available in 
> that particular multilib's libc version and configuration (depending, for 
> example, on how uClibc is configured).

Yes, that makes sense to me.  Bare metal systems are of course somewhat
different.  What do you think about that?

> If only static libraries are being built, it may be possible to build them 
> without linking, and in such cases it may be possible to define a generic 
> set of libc symbols considered to be present, as libstdc++-v3/ 
> does with newlib.

Do you understand how MIPS/Power works?  I'd really like to know what
the difference is.  It might be an easy difference to resolve, or there
might be something more fundamental, but before we do anything I'd like
to know why one works and the other doesn't.


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]