https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=123757
--- Comment #12 from Pierre Ossman <ossman at cendio dot se> --- I'm afraid I still don't see the issue. Compiler 3 is not a cross-compiler (host and target are the same). It is therefore not obviously required to use that compiler to build the support libraries (which I agree could be an issue). The logs shown above indicate that the build system also agrees with that sentiment. It seems to be already using compiler 2 to build the support libraries. I'm not going to reopen again, though. The aggressive closing of this bug gives a clear signal that this is not considered important. I guess we'll have to figure out the fix on our own. (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11) > > The cross back you don't need to build the libraries as you already did with > compiler #2. Copy the libraries from compiler #2 into the sysroot. I hadn't thought about that. I suppose that's a workaround. But it's not ideal for two reasons: a) We have to get a bit more intimate in what support libraries there are, rather than just letting gcc install whatever is appropriate. It adds a bit of maintenance burden. b) It breaks the modularity between the steps. We don't do all of this as a big monolithic step. The two compiler builds are distinct and separate. There are also some bootstrapping of glibc involved here. It's not obvious how to get these files to jump between steps in a clean way here.
