Ray Hurst wrote:
Brian Dessent wrote:
Ray Hurst wrote:
Is libc built by gcc?
Maybe you could elaborate as to what you're *actually* trying to do.
By process of deduction, if libc is written in C then it has to be
compiled by *some* C compiler. On linux systems, the libc is the GNU C
library (glibc), and glibc is written in C, and gcc is the C compiler,
thus libc is compiled by gcc.
But that is just one specific instance, it is not a general rule. What
you seem to be asking is whether libc is part of gcc, and the answer to
that is no, it's completely separate. gcc does not contain a C library
because gcc is used with too many various platforms to make this
maintainable. gcc uses whatever C library comes with the system, and
given that gcc has been ported to at least two or three dozen platforms,
there is a long list of various C libraries that gcc could potentially
be used with. If you were using gcc on e.g. Solaris then the libc would
have been written/maintained by Sun and built with Sun's C compiler.
Brian
Ooops. A chicken and egg story.
You're right. I'm using cygwin for windows XP and I assume gcc is
using libc to build with. Running configure on glib-2.5 results in a
not supported error.
Ray
glibc is for linux, not cygwin.
What you need is newlib.
