On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 04:43:09PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> This, in turn, is the first that is found among:
>
> 1) the default assembler (--with-as)
>
> 2) an in-tree assembler
>
> 3) AS_FOR_TARGET
>
> 4) if host == target, AS (obsolete, should be covered by case 3)
>
> 5) if build == ho
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 03:50:50PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> >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 fi
Gunther Nikl wrote:
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
la
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 successfu
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!
Probably my configuration will not
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:19:14PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:39:20AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:34:14PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > The new scheme to select target tools breaks building GCC for me. Maybe I
>
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:33:30PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Gunther Nikl wrote:
> >
> >If the above isn't restricted to canadian cross, it looks good. This
> >should apply for a normal cross build as well: (build == host) != target
> >
> Yes. My distinction between native and cross, was more
Gunther Nikl wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 10:10:01AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
2) look into the --with-build-tools path, for both a Canadian cross and
a native build. This defaults to $exec_prefix/$target/bin, so the
default build tools (used in autoconf tests and by the being-built GC
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 10:10:01AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 2) look into the --with-build-tools path, for both a Canadian cross and
> a native build. This defaults to $exec_prefix/$target/bin, so the
> default build tools (used in autoconf tests and by the being-built GCC)
> would be, if f
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:39:20AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:34:14PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > The new scheme to select target tools breaks building GCC for me. Maybe I
> > have an unusal setup. The problem in my case is that configure now cho
Yes, this seems to meet the needs I expressed. Thanks, Jan
>>> Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 23.12.05 10:10:01 >>>
> One appropriate default for --with-build-tools could be the same as
> the defaults for --program-transform-name. A default native build
> would use 'as', a default cross build
One appropriate default for --with-build-tools could be the same as
the defaults for --program-transform-name. A default native build
would use 'as', a default cross build would use '$target-as'. Most
people using --program-prefix would probably also pass the same value
to --with-build-tools.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 06:13:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I am a bit confused.
>
> Does Gunther's failure mean that the default for the proposed
> --with-build-tools option, should be $prefix/$target/bin? This would
> set AS_FOR_TARGET, etc. from within the GCC_TARGET_TOOL toplevel
> co
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:58:34PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
It looks to me like this last changed around 2005-06-16 on HEAD, and we
assume that the assembler installed in $prefix is the assembler you
want the compiler to be using - it's the same assembler you'd ge
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:58:34PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> >It looks to me like this last changed around 2005-06-16 on HEAD, and we
> >assume that the assembler installed in $prefix is the assembler you
> >want the compiler to be using - it's the same assembler you'd get if
> >you said "a
It looks to me like this last changed around 2005-06-16 on HEAD, and we
assume that the assembler installed in $prefix is the assembler you
want the compiler to be using - it's the same assembler you'd get if
you said "as", so why shouldn't we use it?
When building from a combined tree, I sti
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:34:14PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> Hello!
>
> The new scheme to select target tools breaks building GCC for me. Maybe I
> have an unusal setup. The problem in my case is that configure now chooses
> tools from $prefix/bin. It did use tools from $prefix/$target/bin befo
17 matches
Mail list logo
