On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:24:22 +0000 (UTC) "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > > Thomas Schwinge dixit: > > > > >Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in > > >glibc) should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's > > >features.h, but instead by using the CPP for doing that. > > > > Why not just autoconf? > > > > Check for the presence of __stack_smash_handler() in libc… or am I > > missing something important here? > > It's desirable to be able to configure GCC correctly in the presence > of installed headers and only a dummy libc.so, so as to get a GCC > that can be used to build the full glibc. See e.g. the documented > bootstrap procedure at > <http://www.eglibc.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/trunk/libc/EGLIBC.cross-building?rev=2037>. > > As such, testing for features of the libc binary in order to build > the core compiler is a bad idea. The more configuration dependencies > you put between the compiler and the library, the more complicated > the bootstrap procedure becomes. So ... we have a list of possible paths for various target variants. Why not simply look into all of them? The list isn't particularly long, and there's no reason to assume more than one will be available ... or is there?
