This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Chris Telting wrote: > Libgcc from my experiance is only necessary for executables. Compiling > libraries should work fine as is whitnessed by gcc using it's own > intermediate xgcc to compile it's libgcc. No, this is just a symptom of the fact that missing symbols aren't detected until final link time and you don't finally-link a library when building it. Or to put it another way, compiling stuff that you never intend to link ever will work fine without libgcc, but compiling a library without libgcc will just give you a library with missing symbols that will cause any exe you tried linking it with to also have missing symbols. Just to make it absolutely clear, you can't even compile something as simple as "a = b/c;" on a system that doesn't have a built-in assembler division instruction without having libgcc. Libgcc is vital. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |