Stephen M. Kenton asked:
> Should specifiying newlib in the absence of the newlib source continue
> to be treated as meaning "force inhibit_libc" in some cases, or should
> inhibit_libc just be exposed if that is desirable?
FWIW, crosstool.sh has this little snippet in it:
# Building the bootstrap gcc requires either setting inhibit_libc, or
# having a copy of stdio_lim.h... see
# http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2003-11/msg00045.html
cp bits/stdio_lim.h $HEADERDIR/bits/stdio_lim.h
If it'd be cleaner to let the caller directly force inhibit_libc,
please do.
- Dan
