http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58276
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Larry Baker from comment #2) > > Yes, this is exactly what I described in my post. The question I have is, > what is the intended behavior of a GCC "make install-host" with regard to > the functioning of the compilers. gcc and g++ are functional; gfortran is > not. Is that what the GCC maintainers expect? Is that what the gfortran > maintainers expect? Yes "make install-host" installs the drivers and the actual compiler itself (cc1/cc1plus/fortran1, etc.) and not the support libraries which is installed by "make install-target" > > Where can I read about the distinction between "make install", "make > install-host", and "make install-target"? Is "make install-host" supposed > to install usable compilers? Define usable compiler? A compiler which can be used to compile the target libraries (including glibc)? Then yes install-host is enough for that. If you define it as usable for full cross compiling, then no it is not enough. I think the bitbake build builds the compiler twice, once to build glibc and then again to build the target libraries. The second time it uses make install rather than make install-host.
