Arnaud Charlet <char...@adacore.com> writes:
>> Yes, that needs to be done of course. I'm not sure if we still support
>> gnatlib_and_tools to build libada/gnattools. If so, we would need the
>> PICFLAG to be available somehow in the gcc Makefile (perhaps by providing
>> GCC_TARGET_PICFLAG in addition to GCC_PICFLAG in picflag.m4).
>
> Yes, we still need that. Building separately gnatlib/gnatools is still in
> production at AdaCore, because the GCC multilib mechanism isn't quite
> suitable/would need to be merged with GNAT's need of multiple run-times.
Ok, I see. Perhaps gcc/ada could be disentangled and those files
exclusively or primarily used for libgnat/libgnarl moved over to libada,
and referenced from there for the host build?
> So passing PICFLAG down to the gcc/ada/gcc-interface Makefile and not
> just via libada/Makefile is indeed important.
This seems to be easy: unless I'm mistaken, it should suffice to just
call GCC_PICFLAG in gcc/configure.ac and substitute the result in
gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in. What's the best way to test this?
I've often had serious trouble when I tried to run make
gnatlib/gnatlib-shared in gcc/ada.
OTOH, it seems you're fine with the general approach of only passing
PICFLAG to build gnatlib, not everything else that happens to reside in
TARGET_LIBGCC2_CFLAGS?
Thanks.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
