Fwd: [RFA] Fix libstdc++ configure failure on cross-builds
Fri Dec 3 17:36:00 GMT 2010
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Paul Koning <email@example.com>
> Date: December 3, 2010 12:05:10 PM EST
> To: "Joseph S. Myers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: gcc-patches <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix libstdc++ configure failure on cross-builds
> On Dec 3, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Paul Koning wrote:
>>> Index: gcc-4.5.1/libtool.m4
>>> --- gcc-4.5.1/libtool.m4 (revision 147400)
>>> +++ gcc-4.5.1/libtool.m4 (working copy)
>>> @@ -1715,6 +1715,11 @@
>>> + netbsd*)
>>> + lt_cv_dlopen="dlopen"
>>> + lt_cv_dlopen_libs=
>>> + ;;
>> libtool patches need to go to upstream libtool first. Is this a backport
>> from upstream?
> No, it's a pilot error, supplying the wrong patch.
>>> @@ -230,7 +230,8 @@
>>> - if test "$glibcxx_have_gc_sections" = "yes"; then
>>> + if test "$glibcxx_have_gc_sections" = "yes" &&
>>> + test x$gcc_no_link != xyes; then
>> Please explain why this is needed for your target when it isn't needed
>> by other people building for bare-metal targets that cannot link at this
>> (In any case, I think NetBSD, like GNU/Linux, *should* be a target where
>> building libstdc++ requires the ability to run link tests. That is, you
>> should need to build libc in your sysroot with a C-only compiler before
>> building one supporting C++, and all the AC_DEFINE settings in
>> crossconfig.m4 for particular functions should be replaced with calls to
>> the appropriate configure test macros.)
> I need to dig deeper. I thought I understood well enough what's going on, but you're raising questions that go beyond my understanding of cross-builds.
> So cancel the request for now, if I still have something to propose later I will reopen the question.
> Thanks for the feedback.
More information about the Libstdc++