https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
DirkInSA changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://raghunathlolur.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/combined-tree-build-of-gcc-binutils-and-libraries/
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1726042/recipe-for-compiling-binutils-gcc-together
etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
--- Comment #4 from DirkInSA ---
Symlink was a simply the whole binutils source directory into gcc source
directory.
I was not aware that each of bfd, binutils, config, cpu & etc needed to be
linked (I assume) into the base gcc directory - will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the full log? And also attach config.log in the top level
directory?
> Actually binutils-2.29 ... are symlinked into the gcc source tree.
How did you do the symlink here? Is it a symlink
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
--- Comment #2 from tomsies at mighty dot co.za ---
Actually binutils-2.29 (along with gmp-6.1.0, mpc-1.0.3 and mpfr-3.1.4) are
symlinked into the gcc source tree. So they should be built as part of the
compile.
My assumption is that the as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88715
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
