------- Comment #19 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-07 05:32 ------- > Now, if the failure was in linking code built with xgcc against the original > [cc-built] libiberty, then that's a more meaningful issue---because CFLAGS > doesn't apply there.
Right, this would have failed here too. > Wait a second---you said that CFLAGS was being ignored because you didn't > trust the user to tweak it appropriately. So the "safe procedure" is what it > is because of that, not because of any technical requirement of the bootstrap > process. Everything is always doable if resources permit. Tweaking CFLAGS is simply not generically supported and I don't think we have plan to that effect. Simply use the documented procedure. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28515
