Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We might want to put libgcc into a separate package for the > > cross-toolchain, unless we can _fake_ the presence of glibc. We might > > only really need a dummy DSO to link libgcc against; it doesn't actually > > have to be glibc -- it only needs about 10 symbols to be present iirc. > > Would you trust a gcc built against a fake glibc? I wouldn't. When > bootstrapping a glibc targeted cross compiler, my method is: Is there any particular reason libgcc needs to be built as part of gcc? Can they be split so that you can build: gcc, glibc, libgcc in that order? David -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
