From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78576DDEDD for ; Sat, 3 May 2008 03:15:33 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <68FE3962-84B3-4A5A-A64A-3FD1B7F6B4E3@kernel.crashing.org> References: <20862df61b024849f55dbd54de7cfb8f@kernel.crashing.org> <68FE3962-84B3-4A5A-A64A-3FD1B7F6B4E3@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Fix bootwrapper builds with newer gcc versions Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 19:15:26 +0200 To: Kumar Gala Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> gcc -print-libgcc-file-name > > It wasn't clear if we used a multilib toolchain if we always get the > proper libgcc since we are building bootwrappers for all kinda of > variants. (e500, 40x, 6xx, etc.). gcc -mthe-options-to-select-some-target -print-libgcc-file-name > My patch seemed the least painful solution to me. In the short term, perhaps ;-) > I assume there is a reason we don't link libgcc w/the kernel. It's historical, even _if_ there was a valid reason once (and I'm not so sure about that), who knows if there still is. Besides, this is not the kernel, this is the bootwrapper, I strongly doubt libgcc would cause any conflicts here. Segher