Re: libstdc++ in a combined tree

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>> I apologize; I didn't realize that.  In that case, you're right; the
>> current approach is just busted.  It should become an --enable option,
>> or a hard-coded case statement, or an autoconf test that doesn't require
>> linking stuff.
> 
> Really? Like --enable-symvers[=style]?
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/configopts.html

DJ said that libstdc++ was doing something inconsistent: forbidding link
tests for cross-compilation, and then doing a link test anyways.  Daniel
says that's not what actually happens, which means that my "just busted"
comment is incorrect; that was a description of the situation as it
would have been had DJ been correct.

My comments about how to fix the hypothetical problem were meant to be
general comments, not specific comments about symbol versions.  If
there's already an option, then we've already got one of the solutions I
was suggesting.

In general, I just want to make sure we don't do things that make cross
or Canadian-cross builds behave differently from native compilation.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713