This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Build fail

From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: Kai Ruottu <karuottu at mbnet dot fi>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 12 Feb 2007 09:14:43 -0800
Subject: Re: Build fail
References: <41127.10.129.41.10.1171009907.squirrel@www.cse.iitb.ac.in> <16083-56154@sneakemail.com> <37721.10.129.41.10.1171012441.squirrel@www.cse.iitb.ac.in> <f7b109350702090138u32bbbf37v3b6b936c3a25e5ec@mail.gmail.com> <45CC4B29.6030801@mbnet.fi> <m3abznfihb.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <45D02F4F.7090702@mbnet.fi>

Kai Ruottu <karuottu@mbnet.fi> writes:

>  For which existing targets the prebuilt C libraries are missing?  Or
> which are the
> targets which don't have any "suitable", "compatible" or something C library
> which could serve as that temporary bootstrap "target C library"
> during the GCC
> build?  In those "special optimized for something" toolchain cases...

The prebuilt C libraries are missing precisely when you are
bootstrapping the target.

You seem to be jumping from the fact that in some cases crosstool does
more than is needed, and in some cases is in fact not what you want,
to assuming that crosstool always does too much and is always useless.
That makes no sense.

Ian

References:
- Re: Build fail
  - From: Ferad Zyulkyarov
- Re: Build fail
  - From: Kai Ruottu
- Re: Build fail
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Build fail
  - From: Kai Ruottu

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]