On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, DJ Delorie wrote: > > I see -- but why did we set GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES? Don't we only do that > > when we've failed to link things? > > No, it's explicit: > > if test "$build" != "$host"; then > # We are being configured with some form of cross compiler. > GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE=false > case "$host","$target" in > *-*-darwin*,*-*-darwin*) > . . . > ;; > > *) > GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
I hadn't realised there was such configuration separate from crossconfig.m4. This setting of GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES is out of date in that we do now expect to be able to do link tests for glibc and uClibc targets and there's been no sign of complaints about problems arising from this. (I don't think you can ever build a correct shared libstdc++ on a glibc system without the shared glibc already being there to link the shared libstdc++ against. And the functions present in uClibc depend on how it was configured, making link checks essential.) -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CodeSourcery mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
