On Saturday 01 November 2008 07:26:04 Christian MICHON wrote: > Jivin David McCullough lays it down... > > > I don't recall any special magic > > Some magic could be invoked to save time at least :-) > > More investigations on D*B, gcc-3.4.6 and uclibc-0.9.29, trying to > compile stock uClibc++-0.2.2. > > The only use of libsupc++.a is apparently to extract some objects from it > only.
Er, yes, I said: > All I really _need_ is a half-dozen .o files bundled into that .a file, > so we could theoretically replace this extraction and dependency to > libsupc++ by just compiling in place these objects (extracting the > source code from the exact g++ version you're using: in my case, > gcc-3.4.6). Hence: > *shrug* I could beat compilation out of it by hand, but I'd like something > that has at least a minimal chance of working in future gcc versions... I'm currently fiddling with gcc 4.1.2, and would like to move on to 4.2 or 4.3 once I have time to attack the arm soft float static linking issue. Which is after the 0.9.30 release, and after I get my server doing decent nightly snapshots automatically. (It's doing nightly snapshots, but I'm not happy with 'em yet.) Speaking of which, how's e release going? (Are the stars right?) > In this way, Rob could bypass the long and painful compilation of > g++/libstdc++ by just compiling these version-dependent files from > g++. This would mean dedicated patching of Makefile (the variation is > the version of gcc). Which is evil and nasty. (Possibly less so than building the whole of libstdc++, but still.) The fundamental problem is that the gcc build is very non-orthogonal. If I can cd into the libsupc++ directory and get it to build just that, I'll probably be happy with that. (It's a separate directory, it has its own makefile. Logically this would imply _some_ kind of separation from the rest of the build. But logic and the gcc build process seem to have very little in common so far, other than perhaps a distant ancestral relationship...) Writing my own makefile that feeds in the appropriate hand-generated .config stuff sounds like a maintenance nightmare. > thoughts, comments ? at least, I'll try that myself on a native system > tonight... :) Let me know how it goes... Rob _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
