Cross compilers without assemblers (rant)

Per Bothner per@bothner.com
Mon Oct 25 15:20:00 GMT 2004


I don't think Kelley's patch (to check that the assembler
supports .machine) should have been reverted.  Which is the
more serious problem:
(1) A gcc user tries to bootstrap gcc with default options,
gets a mysterious error message, and complains/gets frustrated.
(2) Zack gets annoyed because he only wants to build a cross-cc1,
and confgure won't let him without a working assembler.

I don't consider (2) a real problem.  Zack knows how to comment
out the configure test if he wants to.  How many people are in
his position of wanting to build cc1 *only*, without a full
toolchain, and are unwilling to get a working assembler?

Kelley's patch should go back in.  If someone wants to add
some kind of --force or --I-know-what-Im-doing option that is
a separate (less important) issue.

I reported 18142 because I didn't realize/forgot I needed an
updated assembler, Andrew Pinski marked it "invalid", and I
re-opened it because because the current situation is not
acceptable: we need a better failure mode.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/



More information about the Gcc mailing list