[Bug bootstrap/28962] building a cross compiler with --disable-multilib fails
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-28 21:28 --- You should disable libmudflap and libssp (in newer gcc's) if you want to build a cross compiler to start stage1. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28962
[Bug bootstrap/28962] building a cross compiler with --disable-multilib fails
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 06:23 --- (In reply to comment #7) Is there a good reason why gcc can't officially support being built without a libc by either figuring out that there's no libc itself or by offering some kind of --i-do-not-have-a-libc option to configure? Yes because you are configuring wrong in the first place. Try looking at what crosstool does for how to build a cross compiler. http://kegel.com/crosstool/ -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28962
[Bug bootstrap/28962] building a cross compiler with --disable-multilib fails
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-06 16:32 --- /usr/local/DIR/gcc-powerpc64-svn20060906/powerpc64-linux/sys-include -O2 -g -O2 conftest.c 5 /usr/local/bin/powerpc64-linux-ld: crt1.o: No such file: No such file or directory collect2: ld returned 1 exit status That means you don't have binutils/glibc installed correctly. And this is not a regression anyways. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|4.0.3 4.1.1 4.2.0 | Known to work|3.4.6 | Summary|[4.0/4.1/4.2 regression]|building a cross compiler |building a cross compiler |with --disable-multilib |with --disable-multilib |fails |fails | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28962
[Bug bootstrap/28962] building a cross compiler with --disable-multilib fails
--- Comment #7 from bunk at stusta dot de 2006-09-06 17:22 --- I don't have a glibc for this target. But this might be where my problems are coming from: I am able to compile gcc 4.1.1 for at about a dozen targets without having any libc for these targets present. And the resulting compilers work fine for my purposes (cross-compiling Linux kernels). But the configure options I had to figure out for doing this seem to indicate that this is a working but not documented setup. It seems sending a bug report for part of this wasn't the right solution. Is there a good reason why gcc can't officially support being built without a libc by either figuring out that there's no libc itself or by offering some kind of --i-do-not-have-a-libc option to configure? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28962