This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon at redhat dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, bonzini at gnu dot org, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, aoliva at redhat dot com, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>, tom at tromey dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:58:42 +0000
- Subject: Re: libcc1
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141029103151 dot GQ10376 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On 29/10/14 10:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> It would be nice to have libcc1 built just once, not bootstrap it, but
> it is a build module, is that possible?
> In toplevel configure.ac I'm seeing:
> host_tools="texinfo flex bison binutils gas ld fixincludes gcc cgen sid sim gdb gprof etc expect dejagnu m4 utils guile fastjar gnattools libcc1"
> shouldn't libcc1 be in build_tools instead?
> I mean, it is a library meant to be dlopened by gdb and gcc
> plugin that uses that library, so in canadian-cross should be
> for the build target, where the resulting compiler will be run
> and where gdb will be run.
> Could something like following work? Phil, can you try that?
> Perhaps some toplevel Makefile* changes would be needed too.
>From GDB's point-of-view, as long as we have access to the .so that is
built that's all GDB wants. So whichever stage it is produced should be
fine. My archaeology into the source repository has not revealed why
we needed bootstrap. Perhaps we included it out of a sense of
paranoia for testing. I've CC'd Tom on this, so he may have an
opinion or insight. From my point of view, I see no value in
bootstrapping libcc1 now. It's not a required build to bootstrap GCC.