On 25-10-15 12:30, Markus Geimer wrote: > I would have expected that binutils are a dependency (rather than a > builddep) of GCC. The reason is that with a hierarchical module > naming scheme, it is perfectly valid to not expose the EB toolchains > to users by not adding 'Core/toolchain' to the default modulepath. > This means that when I (as a software developer) load GCC, I may end > up with a broken installation that can't compile code optimized for > my platform -- depending on the underlying system-provided binutils. > This looks like a major flaw to me...
Hi Markus, What happens when building the GNU toolchain is: - Build binutils with system GCC - Build GCC using the previous binutils and system GCC - Build binutils with EB GCC - Create GNU toolchain that loads both EB GCC and the previous binutils This is the reason why binutils is a build dep for GCC, we only mean to use that binutils once as it was built using the system GCC. The flaw is that you try to load the GCC module itself while you should be loading the GNU module. But the naming is indeed confusing. Ward -- dr. ir. Ward Poelmans High Performance Computing infrastructure unit Ghent University Krijgslaan 281 S9 B-9000 Gent Belgium Tel: +32 9 264 4817 http://www.ugent.be/hpc
