This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: egcs, Irix6 linking o32-libiberty.a with n32-stage2/3 binaries ...
- To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Subject: Re: egcs, Irix6 linking o32-libiberty.a with n32-stage2/3 binaries ...
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at hurl dot cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 23:32:46 -0700
- cc: wilson at cygnus dot com, egcs at cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <199812072120.QAA26265@caip.rutgers.edu>you write:
> I'm not thrilled with a cc -n32 solution, since it screws some
> pre-7.1 SGI users. I also think it would be a lot of work to get the
> cc -n32 via config/mh-* working given the description you wrote above.
> I am not cygnus-configure literate, so it would be a real pain to
> implement.
>
> IMHO, the right way to go is to rebuild libiberty at each stage
> in the gcc directory. Ignore all the $target/libiberty stuff. Instead,
> in the build process of gcc, we can run symlink-tree on ../libiberty and
> build it similar to how we build the language subdirs (except we do it
> before anything else in the stage.) Then link everyone with that copy of
> libiberty.a. In between stages, we move the symlink-tree libiberty
> directory into stageN so it gets rebuilt. (Also we can add it to the
> make compare rule for added consistency checking.)
>
I'm not thrilled about it either. I can probably live with this though. In
large part because it plays into ....
> This is something we'll have to do anyway to get canadian
> crosses working since we have to build a separate libiberty.a with
> $CC_FOR_BUILD as well as one with $CC.
This makes the option more attractive since I suspect canadian cross builds
are probably more common than builds starting with old buggy sgi compilers :-)
jeff