Sun Jan 1 21:08:00 GMT 2006
Chris Telting wrote:
> Is there an option to skip compilation of libgcc?
> libgcc is just a static or dynamic library right?
> I'm thinking that it means that it isn't needed if your compiling
> libraries. Only final executables get need be linked to it.
If you don't want it, why on earth to worry about its build?
When the GCC build tries to 'build' it, the 'xgcc', 'cc1', ... etc.
compiler components are already made. So in this phase
your "compiler" is already ready and you can start to try it after
copying the components where they belong.... Of course
the 'make install', 'make install-gcc' etc. 'automation' insists that
the 'libgcc.a' should be built but let's the 'make', 'mike'
or some other 'AI-guy' being the only stupid in this demand ! "Make" is
a quite common pet-name for the Finnish "Markku"
just as "Mike" is the pet-name for the English "Michael" or something....
Your situation is quite the same as when a car builder needs to install
the tyres, windshield etc. somewhere. And it is
assumed that the builder has seen these components installed into a car
and so knows where they belong. As a GCC
builder you are assumed to know where the 'xgcc', 'cc1' etc. belong in
your installed GCC. The rules are very simple,
no need to list them here... Just try those '-print-search-dirs' etc.
options in order to see where the installed 'xgcc' would
search the 'cc1' etc... The native GCC and all existing cross-GCCs
follow the same simple rules made from the given
'--prefix=$prefix' in their configures.
Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to email@example.com
More information about the crossgcc