On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:52 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On May 17, 2005 12:21 PM, Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:16 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > On May 17, 2005 11:29 AM, Richard Earnshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 01:59, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > > > > > > > No, I just don't build gfortran as a cross. There are many reasons > > > > > why this is a bad idea anyway. > > > > > > > > Such as? > > > > > > For one thing, libgfortran requires c99 support, which is not in > > > newlib iiuc. > > > > More details please. > > > > Are you referring to stdint.h/inttypes.h etc.? > > newlib/RTEMS has them, as well as newlib+cygwin > > Some other newlib (and non-newlib) targets don't, see PR14325 and > PR16135.
Well, extending the approach I chose to implement in newlib/RTEMS to other target probably isn't too difficult, as well as it probably might be possible to merge this approach into GCC. > There was also some issue with c99 math functions that I > have not followed closely. Some fixes for this went in for HP-UX > and Solaris. I don't know if newlib always provides all the math > functions libgfortran asks for. Neither do I know for sure, but so far, libgfortran's configure script hasn't reported any problems. > Note that I did not mean to imply that gfortran should not be > buildable as a cross, just that I know that there used to be some > problems with this. There still are further problems on some targets (PR21203), but c99 and math functions don't currenlty seem to be a problem with RTEMS/newlib. Ralf
