Subject: re: gcc/binutils/gdb import proposal
To: matthew green <>
From: Todd Vierling <>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 07/16/2000 23:22:54
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, matthew green wrote:

:        Build structure for gcc-2.95.2.  "libgcc" is compiled -fpic;
:        "libgccP" is compiled -fPIC, only on platforms needing an alternate.
: will you have libgccP be used automatically?  on the SPARC, anything
: moderately large really needs -fPIC..  we currently build most things
: with -fPIC there...

This was the idea; it's how multilib works in a multilib-prepped gcc (though
it normally uses different directories instead of alternative filenames to
differentiate the libraries; I could do this too).

I was planning to make c++rt0 use a similar paradigm for selection.  This
has been missing for Quite Some Time.

: everything else looks great, though i don't really get the point of
: moving everything in to usr.bin/binutils...i'd just get rid of the
: binutils directory there entirely.  i think, in particular, moving
: GDB there is wrong.

Well, I wanted at least to group those things found in a distribution.  What
prompted me to move gdb inside was that it uses libbfd (and comes
from the same Redhat source tree); we've already run into users who forget
to build bfd before binutils,,, and gdb.

It's... awkward, I'll admit, but as long as gdb comes with a "don't forget
to build libbfd!!" warning, it can go outside gnu/usr.bin/binutils.

-- Todd Vierling (