gcc defaults [was Re: building slrn on sparc]
- To: "David S. Miller" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Clint Adams <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: gcc defaults [was Re: building slrn on sparc]
- From: Dave Love <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 12:50:44 +0000
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com> (David S. Miller's message of "Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:36:50 -0800")
- References: <20040214151557.GA15121@rollcage.inittab.de> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040214161431.GA16695@rollcage.inittab.de> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040227154520.GA24564@scowler.net> <email@example.com> <20040227190135.GA26507@scowler.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040227213314.GA28209@scowler.net> <email@example.com>
This important stuff got hidden in a rather non-obvious thread.
"David S. Miller" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:33:14 -0500
> Clint Adams <email@example.com> wrote:
>> One difference is that this behavior is the opposite of upstream's
... especially on other, long-established platforms. It's also
undocumented as far as I can tell -- or, rather, contrary to the
documentation. To this ex-GCC maintainer it just looks broken, apart
from the practical grief it seems to be causing.
> In fact, this behavior comes from a desire to do the right thing
> when building and bootstrapping gcc.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here of how it should work.
> GCC's bootstrap process expects
> that if the build/host system is sparc64-* that the system compiler,
> as well as the GCC binary produced by the gcc build itself, will both
> produce 64-bit executables by default. If this is not the case, the
> GCC bootstrap will flat out fail.
Then there appears to be a sparc-gnu-linux-specific bug. How does it
There's no such problem on IRIX64, for instance, which I've been
bootstrapping for years (particularly during testing of the original
multilib/autoconf framework), or on Solaris. I assume likewise on
other 32/64-bit Debian systems.
More to the point, the compiler should be cross-buildable, and
`multilibbing' (compiling abi-specific code) should only be done with
the built compiler.
> In fact, you can ask Ben, that this is where the behavior change came
> from. After I discussed this very specific issues with Ben over the
> course of several weeks.
Why not discuss it with GCC maintainers? If you can explain the issue
I may be able to help, though I'm probably out-of-date on the build
process, and I'd prefer not to have to do much experimenting with
bootstraps on the hardware available.