libstdc++ in a combined tree

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, DJ Delorie wrote:

> > I see -- but why did we set GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES?  Don't we only do that
> > when we've failed to link things?
> 
> No, it's explicit:
> 
> if test "$build" != "$host"; then
>   # We are being configured with some form of cross compiler.
>   GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE=false
>   case "$host","$target" in
>       *-*-darwin*,*-*-darwin*)
> 	. . .
> 	;;
> 
>       *)
> 	GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES

I hadn't realised there was such configuration separate from 
crossconfig.m4.  This setting of GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES is out of date in that 
we do now expect to be able to do link tests for glibc and uClibc targets 
and there's been no sign of complaints about problems arising from this.  
(I don't think you can ever build a correct shared libstdc++ on a glibc 
system without the shared glibc already being there to link the shared 
libstdc++ against.  And the functions present in uClibc depend on how it 
was configured, making link checks essential.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)