On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 13/10/16 13:11, Luca Saiu wrote: > ... >> So, what I'm asking you is: does a clean solution exist, or compiling >> without a runtime library is just not supported by the Autotools? It >> sounds weird to say that for configuring you need a cross-compiler with >> support for a runtime that will never even be linked when building. >> Shouldn't there be, at least, one variant of AC_PROG_CC which doesn't >> fail in a fatal way? >> >> I'm not yet linking the code in a public forum just because it still >> lacks copyright and license headers; but in case it were useful to you, >> even if I doubt it, I can clean it up and publish it. > > It can be messy and take quite some time to figure out what to do, but this > kind of stuff is handled in the autoconf/automake/autogen build system of > binutils and gcc. Not a quick and easy path for the uninitiated though. As I recall, what gcc/binutils do about a very similar problem is considered an awkward kludge, and if you could contribute to a _proper_ solution, your help would be most welcome. You might want to bring up the problem you're having on the gcc@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list, as that will be seen by more people who understand how this kludge works. I can tell you that grepping libstdc++-v3 for the string "NO_EXECUTABLES" is likely to provide some hints, but it has been more than ten years since I had to touch it myself. zw _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
