On 24 Jan 2008, at 7:20 AM, Brian Dessent wrote:
Michael Witten wrote:
Can I build gcc in this way?
I've been trying for quite some time now to achieve such a
stripped down gcc, but it would seem that the gcc build
process insists on building these libraries, which I think
is wholly unnecessary.
You might be able to approximate this by "make all-gcc" and then "make
install-gcc" (or just manually copying the xgcc to the destination.)
I'm a little uncomfortable just taking the xgcc that's left over when
the build fails.
In any case, it would seem I can't even build a so called 'naked' C
compiler, as would be desired for (hobbyist) kernel building, without
having the presence of some kind of library like newlib (I recall that
such library interferences wasn't always a problem).
I still don't understand why gcc imposes these libraries, when they
have nothing to do with compilation. It just seems like bad design.
Perhaps it is just the monolithic, rigid, inadequate build process
that covers up a more elegant design.
Then again, I'm not really well versed in these things, so please
correct me if my understanding is wanting.
Michael Witten
