This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>> Perhaps we should turn target-libgfortran off by default for mips*-elf*.
> No. There is a point in excercising the compiler: Testing. In most cases,
> you don't find problems with the compiler until you try to compile something.
When building the compiler and its libraries, testing is of incidental
benefit; the primary goal is to build things. :-) The testsuite is for
It's great to know that gfortran works for other ELF targets. That
means that there must be something a bit odd in the MIPS support
somewhere, and I'm sure we can find it and fix it.
Thanks for working on the gfortran configure script. I think it would
be great to make that work like the libstdc++ script.
> This hunk should be left out. And I would prefer that we don't revert the
> patch until everything that builds with the patch also builds without the
I don't think that's necessary -- unless these things built with
previous releases, in which case I'd be very concerned about making a
change that caused fewer things to build. Did this work in 4.2? I
don't know, but I'm expecting that it did not?
It sounds like we upgraded libtool, and that introduced link-time tests
into libstdc++, which caused build failures. So you came up with the
top-level patch, which then probably made it possible to build some of
the other target libraries that didn't build before for bare metal
because they had always depended on link-time tests. Is that correct?
We should be conservative about making changes in assumptions. If we're
going to change the assumption that target library configure scripts
cannot rely on link-time tests when $with_newlib is set, then let's do
that consciously. I think it's reasonable to take that position (even
though it's not my preference), but I don't want to change the
assumption quietly. And, I think libstdc++ is our canonical model of a
run-time library; others should follow its lead, until/unless we
consciously decide otherwise.
I also don't want to see each architecture or run-time library doing
things in different ways. GCC's biggest strength is its cross-platform
nature; we undermine that every time we do things in slightly different
ways within our own individual areas of concentration.
I'm in no way criticizing you or your top-level patch. I understand
completely why you did what you did and its benefits. But, I want to
get everyone on the same page, and until that happens, I want to stick
with how things have been in the past.
> Additionally, I would prefer we call the option something else than
> --with-newlib - suppose there's no newlib for the target. At least the AVR
> uses something else.
That might be a good idea -- I think we do need to know which C library
is in use for at least some of the target libraries. I'm pretty sure
that libstdc++ actually depends on --with-newlib meaning that you're
using Newlib (rather than some other C library) in that it uses
facilities in Newlib that aren't necessarily part of a standard C
library. I could be wrong about that, though.
(650) 331-3385 x713