This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon at redhat dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:15:06 -0600
- Subject: Re: libcc1
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141029103151 dot GQ10376 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <5450CE59 dot 8000002 at redhat dot com> <5450F914 dot 9090606 at redhat dot com> <5450FA7D dot 1040208 at redhat dot com>
On 10/29/14 08:32, Phil Muldoon wrote:
Not at all... To a large degree libcc1 is driven by your needs, so if
you don't need the bootstrap, then let's remove it from bootstrap.
On 29/10/14 14:26, Phil Muldoon wrote:
On 29/10/14 11:24, Phil Muldoon wrote:
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 a point of view of GDB, as long as in all scenarios above the .so
is available in the finished produce that is fine. I will test your
patch and report back.
I built with bootstrap enabled, and also disabled with this patch. In
both cases the .so is available. So it looks good. I also ran GDB
compile testcases against both .so's and all looks good there too.
I forgot to ask, I am fine with this patch. I concur with Jakub that
building libcc1 as part of bootstrap is not needed. Does anyone else
object to removing libcc1.so from bootstrap?