On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Yes, that makes sense to me. Bare metal systems are of course somewhat > different. What do you think about that?
I think it's well established that at least some bare-metal systems default to not linking with any particular start-files (etc.). > > If only static libraries are being built, it may be possible to build them > > without linking, and in such cases it may be possible to define a generic > > set of libc symbols considered to be present, as libstdc++-v3/configure.ac > > does with newlib. > > Do you understand how MIPS/Power works? I'd really like to know what > the difference is. It might be an easy difference to resolve, or there > might be something more fundamental, but before we do anything I'd like > to know why one works and the other doesn't. * They only build static libstdc++. * --with-newlib is used, either explicitly or implicitly if newlib is built in a combined tree. (I do not know if it works with --with-newlib is not used and it's not a combined tree.) * configure.ac then checks for --with-newlib and handles it specially by hardcoding information about the functions present. * With --disable-shared, GLIBCXX_ENABLE_SYMVERS disables symbol versioning instead of trying to do certain link tests it would do if shared libraries are being built; it also does so if unable to link. * Each other configure test that might wish to link also needs special handling or to be appropriately conditional. * Such special handling is also needed in other target libraries that support bare-metal systems (some libraries such as libgomp and libmudflap may well not do so at all). So make sure the build is using --disable-shared if you can't link; if that still doesn't help, some configure test somewhere may need disabling, either if unable to link, or if not building shared libraries, or some other condition. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
