Trouble w/GCC 3.0.3

Kai Ruottu
Fri Sep 20 07:26:00 GMT 2002

"William A. Gatliff" <> wrote:

> Craig:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 08:43:41PM -0600, Craig Vanderborgh wrote:
> > Hello All:
> > 
> > I am trying to build a cross-gcc which will allow me to compile WinCE
> > binaries on an i386 Linux (RedHat 7.1) host.  I am using binutils 2.11.2,
> > and gcc 3.0.3.  I have patched the sources with the modifications that are
> > supposedly required for WinCE.  binutils builds without errors and the
> > utilities appear to run.  gcc, on the other hand, gets way into the build
> > and fails trying to assemble "lib1func.asm".  My config line is this:
> > 
> > ../../gcc-3.0.3/configure --target=arm-wince-pe --prefix=/usr/local/wince \
> > --enable-languages="c,c++" --enable-multilib=no
> > 
> > The failed command, along with the results, is the following:
> [snip]
> Are you sure that /usr/local/wince/bin is in your PATH before anything
> else?  Looks like you may be accidentally invoking the wrong
> assembler.

 What the $prefix/bin being in the PATH has to do in finding the
right 'as' ?  This is what GCC searches, not the 'arm-wince-pe-as',
which the toolchain-user is supposed to use.  So the right 'as'
must be in the '$prefix/$target/bin' (as default after 'make install'
in binutils-build, but a GCC-version-specific 'as' can be put to
be earlier in the GCC-search paths).

 So a 'arm-wince-pe' targeted 'as' must be in the:


in this case. One can always see the GCC-search paths using the well-
known command:

    ./xgcc -print-search-dirs

with the new GCC-driver. Using a 'make ... CFLAGS="-v -g -O2" or
something to put the '-v' option into the GCC-command lines will
usually give a much clearer 'Logfile' and tells more about which
assembler was really used, the compile log given originally didn't
use the expected '-v'... I would claim that this could have helped
Craig to see the problem, although the usually 'unseen':

  -isystem /usr/local/wince/arm-wince-pe/include

options for 'xgcc' were clearly seen in the given log...  Why
these options to 'xgcc' don't say anything to the askers is
still a mystery to me...  Is the '-B' option unknown ?  The
'-isystem' too ?

Cheers, Kai

Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ,
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to

More information about the crossgcc mailing list