On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 02:55:30PM +0000, Philip Nye wrote: > Convention has it that to build a cross compiler from scratch you need to > do it twice - stage-1 is a restricted version to build the target > library, the stage-2 is a full generic compiler. However, I don't know > the workings of GCC sufficiently well to fully understand this. > > In all my uClinux projects, I have the library (uClibc) integrated with > the project and have it configured and compiled differently for different > projects. I then point the compiler explicitly at the project's uClibc > build using command line switches. (including -nostdlib etc.) > > In this situation is there any benefit to carrying out the second > compiler pass? What about C++ - can that be built with the first stage > compiler?
I believe the idea is that whatever compiler you start with might be buggy and not work correctly to compile your new compiler, so a minimal stage1 c compiler is built that is known to be able to build the compiler properly. The stage1 compiler is then used to compile the actual full compiler. It does seem like a good idea. After all if you were on HP-UX or Solaris or AIX, who knows if the compiler installed on the system is capable of actually compiling gcc at all. By only having to compiler the minimal stage1 c compiler you avoid all those issues. -- Len Sorensen _______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
