Is libc built by gcc?

[Bobby McNulty]

Ray Hurst wrote:
> 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
>
>
glibc is for linux, not cygwin.
What you need is newlib.