Andrew Haley wrote :
Indu Bhagat writes:
> I am trying to configure gcc for compiling some c,cpp and fortran
> sources to x86_64 on my x86 machine using the following steps:
>
> 1. Binutils-2.17 configuration and installation:
> 2. After successful completion of step 1, gcc configuration and installation:
> 3. After this, I proceeded with glibc, as I think one needs to have
> appropriate library support as well, to support cross compilation.
> OK, now you need to build gcc again, this time with glibc (not
newlib) support.
The common rule is that the "appropriate library" is always the C
library for the $target! For Red Hat's
Linuces for instance it is that for the Red Hat Linux in question, not
for instance that for some SuSE Linux
or for some Debian or for some Ubuntu. And not a C library for some
"totally self-made Linux" which
the builder produces oneself purely from sources! If one doesn't know
much, the safe bet is always the
original target stuff in the existing target case!
If some C library "version" for Linux like 'glibc-2.5' would be
identical in every Linux/x86_64 distro,
then it could be possible to just take any of the available ones... But
in this case too the C library rebuild
would be quite weird choice...
Generally the choice to try to build the "target C library" during the
GCC build sounds very weird....
A normal (and sane!) GCC builder doesn't try to invent ways to avoid
having the target C library in
'/lib', '/usr/lib' and '/usr/include' during the native GCC build.
Neither one tries anything like that in a
cross GCC build case but simply copies the existing target C library
from the target system into its
appropriate places in the cross host system!
The required "know-how" is "how to copy" or "how to unpack install
packages" and knowing what on
earth is the place for the target libraries in a cross-compiler... Of
course both skills are the prerequisites
and both them can be learned by simply asking! Like asking on this
"gcc-help" maillist...
I cannot understand why these trivialities weren't asked before
starting these weird and unexpected
"all prebuilt stuff is from ass" - thought influenced build steps....
It maybe is a nuisance for some people
that so many Linux users require to start with a prebuilt distro, a GCC
build from sources requires a
prebuilt GCC etc., but not for the big majority! For quite many using
a prebuilt hammer when producing
a self-made hammer is totally acceptable... We can only wonder why so
many are perfectly happy with
a self-made native GCC which uses some "NIH"-brand glibc in '/lib',
'/usr/lib' and '/usr/include'!
