> -----Original Message----- > From: dosr...@gmail.com [] On Behalf Of Gabriel Dos > Reis > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:08 AM > To: Richard Guenther > Cc: Georg-Johann Lay; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Denis Chertykov; Weddington, > Eric; Joerg Wunsch > Subject: Re: [Patch,avr] PR54461: Better AVR-Libc integration > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Can you explain this? A typical build of avr tools goes like > >> > >> 1) configure, build and install binutils > >> 2) configure, build and install the compiler > >> 3) configure, build and install AVR-Libc > >> > >> so that in step 2 no checking is possible because there is no -lc yet. > >> Or do you mean a check at run time (of the compiler)? > > > > 4) build and install the real compiler > > > > at which time you have AVR-libc available. AT least that's how you > > "bootstrap" a glibc cross. > > avr-gcc has had a "simplified" build process for a while, as it almost never > needed to have a avr-gcc hosted on an avr platform. It is usually > built as a cross-compiler that always run on the build platform. > > What I was suggesting earlier is that we shouldn't continue patching > the AVR target as if the current state is almost ideal. Pick a libc -- avr- > libc > appears to be the natural implementation -- and make it the default as > opposed to adding nobs.
I also strongly agree with this. AFAIK, the only project that uses newlib as the C library for the AVR target is RTEMS, because, AIUI, they need to have the POSIX interface. The vast majority of AVR users have a toolchain that uses avr-libc. Eric Weddington