This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: -ffunction-sections
> > This seems backwards to me; surely we can CHECK_COMPILER_FEATURES
> > without needing a linker, and only CHECK_LINKER_FEATURES needs to be
> > avoided?
>
> As long as one is
>
> 1) using the "C" compiler, not the C++ compiler
>
> 2) using and finding correct binutils and "C" compiler (including all
> necessary libraries and startup files)
>
> 3) not requiring built executables to execute and run
>
> I would assume that even things that required linking could be
> auto-confed. The problem is satisfying the three requirements above in a
> simple and sane way. Thus the current hacks.
If we assume there is a usuable linker and C libraries handy (why are this
not current assumptions?), then I wonder what the purpose of the whole "if
cross compiler branch"?
Surely exactly the same build should be produced, if I build libstdc++ on my
native sh-elf machine vs building it on my linux box with my cross sh-elf
tools?
It doesn't happen at the moment, native tools give me config/os/generic,
cross tools give me config/os/newlib.
So why can't there be only the tree as currently exists in
"configure.target"? Perhaps just made slightly more general to handle cross
compiles?