Re: Standalone gcc library builds

[Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>]

On (29/03/10 16:53), Richard Purdie wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We currently build gcc and all its runtime libraries as part of at least
> "gcc-cross", "gcc", "gcc-cross-sdk". Packaging of these libraries varies
> between the different recipes and is a pretty scary place for things to
> go wrong which I've frequently seen.
> 
> I'm working on the idea of having the above packages just generate the
> compiler binaries (host tools) and having a "gcc-runtime" package which
> builds all the libraries (target libs). I think can make this work
> expect for libgcc itself which is proving a real pain (unsurprisingly).
> 
> For libgcc, we can save the bits it needs from the gcc build into
> staging and then make it build that way, or just build it as a special
> case as part of gcc, stash it in staging, then package it as part of
> gcc-runtime.
> 
> Does anyone have any better ideas of experience of playing with libgcc?

I have had gcc build all runtimes libraries separately. I think we should
device gcc build and we can disable building certain directories via
--disable-<dir>. We dont have to stash libgcc. Its not a big library and
its probably better to rebuild it along with rest of runtime libraries IMO
and probably we should have packages for each language runtime so people
who dont need C++ or Java or fortran dont have to build those. The same
should be tunable in gcc builds too.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel