Is libc built by gcc?

[Ray Hurst]

Brian Dessent wrote:
> Ray Hurst wrote:
> 
>> Is libc built by gcc?
> 
> Maybe you could elaborate as to what you're *actually* trying to do.
> 
> By process of deduction, if libc is written in C then it has to be
> compiled by *some* C compiler.  On linux systems, the libc is the GNU C
> library (glibc), and glibc is written in C, and gcc is the C compiler,
> thus libc is compiled by gcc.
> 
> But that is just one specific instance, it is not a general rule.  What
> you seem to be asking is whether libc is part of gcc, and the answer to
> that is no, it's completely separate.  gcc does not contain a C library
> because gcc is used with too many various platforms to make this
> maintainable.  gcc uses whatever C library comes with the system, and
> given that gcc has been ported to at least two or three dozen platforms,
> there is a long list of various C libraries that gcc could potentially
> be used with.  If you were using gcc on e.g. Solaris then the libc would
> have been written/maintained by Sun and built with Sun's C compiler.
> 
> Brian
> 
Ooops. A chicken and egg story.
You're right. I'm using cygwin for windows XP and I assume gcc is using 
libc to build with. Running configure on glib-2.5 results in a not 
supported error.
Ray