On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:44 PM, David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Rick Springob <rspringob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I do not understand the relationship to binutils to gcc either. The >> build instructions for gcc list binutils as a pre-requisite. Elsewhere >> in the build instructions, you are told to use the native linker and >> other tools rather than the binutil versions. In the configure >> script, there is an option for specifying binutils. Why is it there a >> configuration option if it should not be used? In any case, binutils >> are not in my path. Thus, configure does not use them. I do not think >> that this is contributing to the current problem. > > Binutils does not work correctly on AIX 5, AIX 6 or AIX 7. Do not use > it. Do not set extra options about which as and ld to use. Simply > ensure that /opt/freeware/bin/as and .../ld are not in your patch. Does it mean that there is no way whatsoever to build cross-compiler for AIX? No Linux->AIX, Solaris->AIX, nothing? >> Regarding static, I am looking to build a compiler that can be used in >> a common toolchain shared among build hosts. This ensures that the >> compiler will behave consistently on various hosts rather than being >> subject to the variability of the shared objects on each system. When >> a machine hangs around for years, for example, expanding the build >> farm with an exact replica of hardware and software becomes >> increasingly difficult as time marches on. > > C++ and Exception handling will not work correctly with static > libraries on AIX. One also will encounter missing symbols that are > provided by libsupc++. Does it mean that my binaries with static libgcc and libstdc++ (custom gcc build, so "static" library does not contain .so) work purely by chance? Or are you writing about newest gcc versions? -- Jędrzej Dudkiewicz I really hate this damn machine, I wish that they would sell it. It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it.
