Brendon Costa <brendon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Is it possible to avoid having to build a new version of binutils using > >> the GCC just installed by somehow configuring the new GCC to make use of > >> the existing libiberty from the old GCC? Or is that just going to cause > >> all sorts of possible problems? > > > > That is going to cause all sorts of possible problems. Better to keep > > your new gcc separate from your old gcc, e.g., by configuring with a > > different --prefix. > > > > Ian > > They do have different prefixes. The existing one has /usr and the new > one /usr/edoc. However I have been compiling the new one without > binutils (I.e. not doing a combined build or rebuilding binutils with > the new GCC afterwards), assuming it would successfully use the existing > binutils in /usr. Is this possible as a generic solution or for the > generic solution am i going to have to build binutils + newlib as well > as GCC? In that scenario I'm not sure why you are having trouble. It sounded like you were somehow replacing libiberty.a, and that was causing the configure script to have the wrong results. But if you are not replacing libiberty.a or libbfd.a, then I don't know what is failing. Ian
