This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: selection or target tools
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:19:14PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:39:20AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:34:14PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > The new scheme to select target tools breaks building GCC for me. Maybe I
> > > have an unusal setup. The problem in my case is that configure now chooses
> > > tools from $prefix/bin. It did use tools from $prefix/$target/bin before.
> > > On my setup I have *different* tools in those places. Until know the tools
> > > from $prefix/$target/bin were selected and everything was fine. Now the
> > > build process creates eg. gcc/as which uses as from $prefix/bin. That
> > > assembler is *never* invoked when I running <target>-gcc. Thus I am
> > > surprised that configure now prefers that version. Is the current
> > > behaviour a bug?
> >
> > From your description I assume this is a native build ($target ==
> > $host). When did this change?
>
> Sorry for being vague, its a cross-compiler (build == host). The build
> errors out for libgcc.a since gcc/xgcc uses the "wrong" assembler. The
> last successful build was at the beginning of decemeber.
Wait wait wait wait wait. This is a cross compiler. Are we mistakenly
running $prefix/bin/$target-as, which is a bad version, or are we
really running $prefix/bin/as, a program named "as"? If we're doing
that, let's fix that separately - it's a nasty bug!
> > Also, _why_ do you have different tools in those two places?
>
> Is this important? I kept binutil versions in $prefix/bin because at
> times its useful to have it, eg. comparing its output/behaviour. The
> replaced tools in $prefix/$target/bin are better suited for my needs,
> thus I installed them there and until recently GCC always used these
> tools.
You see, normally the binutils "make install" hardlinks
bin/mips-linux-as to mips-linux/bin/as. GCC probably has more than one
assumption that they're compatible assemblers.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC