Subject: Re: Can we trim the fat from gcc3, please?
To: Frederick Bruckman <>
From: grant beattie <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/24/2003 22:29:12
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 06:15:23AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:

> > this is utterly broken, and the reason we do not put it in
> >
> > in short, it is a gcc problem (just like the lack of implicit rpath
> > to find it's own libraries!). it is exposed by the way we "hide"
> > includes and libs.
> Buildlink *doesn't* *fix* the problem. The bootstrap compiler, "xgcc",
> is not wrapped or touched by buildlink in any way.

I didn't suggest that buildlink does fix it...

> Even if it were,
> the issue you're complaining about is a configuration issue with "gcc"
> (and "binutils", which is installed to ${LOCALBASE}), and not anything
> buildlink can help with.

I agree, the problem lies with gcc (I can't comment about binutils,
I'm using 3.3 mostly on Solaris), and buildlink is *not* the cause of