Work on new CrossGCC FAQ underway

[bgat@open-widgets.com]

Keith:

> > One thing that would help,
> >   to be able to build a core
> > gcc that DIDN'T build libgcc1 and libgcc2.  Such a compiler could
> > build libraries, but wouldn't be able to build standalone executables
> > because it would lack all the nifty stuff that those two libs contain.
> 
> This is also an important case for those of us who build really
> truly standalone executables.  I mean the kind that sit in
> ROM and have to set up DRAM timings and look for a boot
> record long before they can even think about calling printf.

Right--- I know that such a broken gcc would be of little use to us
application writers.  But it would work well enough to build the
runtime libs and header files, which then in turn would be used to
build a complete, functional gcc.

I do standalone, ROM (well, flash) stuff with gcc all the time, so I
see exactly where you're coming from.  What I'm talking about is more
related to just the compiler setup and build process, and doesn't have
much to do with executables.

b.g.
-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@open-widgets.com

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com