Re: Standalone gcc library builds

From: Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>
To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: Standalone gcc library builds
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:14:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <hosiv0$875$1@dough.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1269942145.1681.859.camel@rex>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 30-03-10 11:42, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 11:33 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 29-03-10 23:42, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 10:42 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I talked with Khem on irc but just for the record here, I've done some
>>> testing with gcc 4.3.3 in Poky and have pushed my results to:
>>>
>>> http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky/log/?h=master-gcc-runtime-testing
>>>
>>> This adds a gcc-runtime recipe which builds libgcc, libssp and libstdc++
>>> as test cases. It will be possible to build other runtime libs
>>> conditionally on whether they're enabled like libfortran easily enough.
>>
>> Can't we have seperate recipes for ssp, stdc++, fortran, java, etc? I
>> don't think we need USEFLAGs for this when we build them seperately anyway.
> 
> We'd not be using USEFLAGS, we'd just be looking at the line which tells
> gcc itself which bits to build. Having separate recipes doesn't solve
> the problem since we'd still have to work out whether the compiler for a
> given lib was built and then we enter a dependency nightmare working out
> which packages need which combinations of compilers and compiler libs.
> 
> So we can have separate recipes but think through the issues and see
> whether you still like the idea... 

Let's put it in a different way:

Can we stop artificially limiting the toolchain options and have people
opt-out instead of opt-in for stuff? I really need a full featured
toolchain :)

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFLsc8gMkyGM64RGpERAspvAJkBUOMCqc6Z4hB7eU0lmzRGStBHBQCglZw/
CDixQmIv66vduo4Yoi2SQGk=
=dIFy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----