On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:36:21AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:19:14PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote: > > Sorry for being vague, its a cross-compiler (build == host). The build > > errors out for libgcc.a since gcc/xgcc uses the "wrong" assembler. The > > last successful build was at the beginning of decemeber. > > Wait wait wait wait wait. This is a cross compiler. Are we mistakenly > running $prefix/bin/$target-as, which is a bad version, or are we > really running $prefix/bin/as, a program named "as"? If we're doing > that, let's fix that separately - it's a nasty bug!
$prefix/bin/$target-as was invoked through the script "gcc/as" created by stamp-as. AFAICT, that rule uses AS_FOR_TARGET. I am only using $prefix for cross compilers, thus there is no naked tool in $prefix/bin. > > > Also, _why_ do you have different tools in those two places? > > > > Is this important? I kept binutil versions in $prefix/bin because at > > times its useful to have it, eg. comparing its output/behaviour. The > > replaced tools in $prefix/$target/bin are better suited for my needs, > > thus I installed them there and until recently GCC always used these > > tools. > > You see, normally the binutils "make install" hardlinks > bin/mips-linux-as to mips-linux/bin/as. I know. > GCC probably has more than one assumption that they're compatible > assemblers. I wasn't aware that this assumption exists. I admit that my setup is probably uncommon. I always assumed gcc has to use as/ld from $prefix/$target/bin. Gunther
