Thomas Schwinge <tschwi...@baylibre.com> writes: > Hi! > > On 2025-06-02T22:01:44+0530, Arijit Kumar Das > <arijitkdgit.offic...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Umm, I don't think so. I've been building crosses with gcc for decades. >>> It should not be necessary, though it may sometimes be convenient. > > Right. Similarly to how it's, for example, documented on > <https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/simtest-howto.html>, also the build > instructions for GCC '--target=nvptx-none' that I gave Arijit use a > combined tree (just GCC plus newlib). You might indeed consider that's > just for convenience: let the top-level build system figure out at which > stage to build newlib, instead of manually doing C-only GCC > '--without-headers' etc., then build newlib with that, then rebuild full > GCC, etc. > >>> If you feel there's a strong need, then you're going to have to make a >>> better case than what you've done above. Specifically you'd need to >>> start with why the standard cross build procedures don't work for nptx. > > I'd consider the combined tree build one "standard cross build procedure" > (in addition to the "manual" one), but I also agree with Jeff that > special-casing just newlib isn't the way to go, given there are indeed > many more additional/optional packages that the top-level build system > can handle, as mentioned in > <https://inbox.sourceware.org/d463a70e-b586-40ce-b778-2e3d54b31...@gmail.com>.
We list a bunch of them, just not all. >> understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > Actually, with Git, it's easier: you 'git add' only the files that you > care about, and just ignore 'newlib' in the top-level. I agree. That said, IMO the bar for NACKing a .gitignore change should be fairly high and I think the request to add newlib here is pretty reasonable. > > > Either way: Arijit, even if this one didn't get accepted, you've > successfully executed the process: congratulations on your first GCC > patch submission, on your own initiative -- way to go! :-D > > > Grüße > Thomas > > >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 7:47 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/2/25 3:01 AM, Arijit Kumar Das wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > When compiling GCC for targets like nvptx-none that require newlib, we >>> > need to put newlib-cygwin/newlib in the root directory of the source >>> > tree (either a copy or a symlink), which is then built by GCC when >>> > targeting offload devices like the above. Changes made in newlib >>> > shouldn't affect GCC, so I think we should include newlib in this case. >>> Umm, I don't think so. I've been building crosses with gcc for decades. >>> It should not be necessary, though it may sometimes be convenient. >>> >>> If you feel there's a strong need, then you're going to have to make a >>> better case than what you've done above. Specifically you'd need to >>> start with why the standard cross build procedures don't work for nptx. I'd asked about this before on IRC but didn't get an answer, but maybe I'll file a bug and inquire about that because it's been bugging me for some time for our own packaging of nvptx ;) >>> >>> jeff thanks, sam
