Weddington, Eric wrote: > >> From: Georg-Johann Lay >> >> So here is an updated version of the patch. >> Instead of "with_avrlibc = yes" it does "with_avrlibc != no". >> >> Just like the first version, --with-avrlibc[=*] is only recognized >> if avr-gcc is not configured for RTEMS, i.e. RTEMS users don't need >> to set --with-avrlibc=no in order to get a complete libgcc. > > Sorry, I'm a bit confused. With your new patch... > > - If I build GCC, for the avr target (plain), without specifying > the --with-avr-libc=<> switch, does it default to "yes"?
Yes. Anything except an explicit "no" is treated like "yes". > - If I build GCC, for the avr-rtems target, without specifying > the --with-avr-libc=<> switch, does it default to "no"? Notice the switch is called --with-avrlibc. The option is ignored for avr-*-rtems*, thus is similar to "no", thus yes for the question. > Because the above is what I would expect the default behavior to be. > Doing that would certainly help with backwards compatibility for those > building toolchain distributions. > > I would think that the user has to specify the --with-avr-libc=<> flag > to explicitly deviate from common usage and practice. Yes, that's the case. Except for users that want avr-*-* without AVR-Libc and with newlib or some other libc flavor. Johann