Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?

["E. Weddington" <eric at umginc dot net>]

On 10 Jun 2003 at 0:44, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> >Well, why not arrange, when using a combined tree and a newlib target, for
> >libiberty to be built after newlib?  Is this even an issue?  We 
> 
> Which libiberty?  It's built (up to) three times.
> 
> build-libiberty is fine, since presumably the build machine has a C 
> library.
> 
> host-libiberty may be built using a cross compiler from the build 
> machine to the host.  We can, I suppose, assume that the builder has 
> supplied a C library for the host.  (Otherwise we won't be able to finish 
> building GCC, GDB, gas, or anything else, anyway.)
> 
> target-libiberty could indeed be built after newlib.  Give the following
> (untested) patch a try.  You'll have to regenerate Makefile.in and 
> configure.  
> 
> Of course, in the non-newlib ordinary cross-compiler case, a 
> C library for the target would have to be supplied in order to build 
> target libraries, and worse, the cross-compiler would have to *know* 
> about the C library somehow.  If we can guarantee that it *would* know 
> about it in an easy manner, then this is probably a very reasonable 
> suggestion...

FYI, The AVR community has it's own C library, avr-libc. Currently it's very 
straight forward to build our cross toolset. Build: binutils, gcc, avr-libc; in 
that order.

The AVR cross toolset apparently is one of the easiest to build, I think, 
because of having it's own library. From what I've seen on the crossgcc list, 
targets that use glibc (and possibly newlib) seem to be more difficult to 
build. Any change that will make building cross toolsets *easier* would be 
incredibly welcome. 

Eric Weddington