http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58276
--- Comment #7 from Larry Baker ---
Andrew,
On 29 Aug 2013, at 4:50 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>> Where can I read about the distinction between "make install", "make
>> install-host", and "make install-target"? Is "make install-host
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58276
--- Comment #6 from Larry Baker ---
Andrew,
On 29 Aug 2013, at 4:50 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I think the bitbake build builds the compiler twice, once to build glibc and
> then again to build the target libraries. The second time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58276
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Larry Baker from comment #4)
> I suppose a different way of asking whether this should be considered a bug
> is to ask what should gfortran's behavior be when libgfortran.spec is
> missing? Is th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58276
--- Comment #4 from Larry Baker ---
I suppose a different way of asking whether this should be considered a bug is
to ask what should gfortran's behavior be when libgfortran.spec is missing? Is
the correct behavior to continue with the link step
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58276
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(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 funct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58276
--- Comment #2 from Larry Baker ---
Andrew,
On 29 Aug 2013, at 4:31 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58276
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58276
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
