Re: [09/25] Specs cleanup: CRIS

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:

> > * cris/linux.h had specs passing -rpath-link options in some cases
> >   (-B, or not -nostdlib).  This is not needed for any properly
> >   configured cross toolchain (for GNU/Linux targets, that means using
> >   a sysroot).
> 
> A sysroot configuration is not (should not be) mandatory for a
> working cross-toolchain; no particular configure options at all
> should be needed besides the --target option.  I understand
> the confusion seeing that "down" in a port though.  I traced
> this to
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg01004.html>.

Since glibc installs a linker script as libc.so, with absolute paths in it 
that need to be interpreted relative to the sysroot, you're not going to 
have non-sysroot configurations working well without editing that linker 
script at least.

> >  And if it were appropriate, it should be done for all
> >   GNU/Linux targets since there is nothing meaningfully CRIS-specific
> >   about it.
> 
> Definitely.  I think there should be a generic GNU/Linux
> "%{B*:-rpath-link %* }".

Whereas I think there should be no specs conditional on -B options at all.  
That's the wrong level for -B options to operate.  They change various 
paths in gcc.c, and those paths are then used to determine the expansion 
of specs such as %D.  It's quite possible something should output 
-rpath-link options in some cases - but this should be using the paths in 
gcc.c, independent of whether they came from -B options, rather than a 
%{B*:} spec.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com