Re: Any plans to integrate just binutils‑gdb into GCC?

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

unlvsur unlvsur via Gcc-help <[email protected]> writes:

> The cross compiler approach (aka $target-gcc) ads another dimension which=
 is mathematically a mess.
>
> For examples if you have N platforms, to build every possible combination,
> clang only has N combos (only needs the host). While gcc needs N^2
> (host*target). It just wastes computing resources to build each of them a=
nd it
> is a terrible mess. Just look at this. And this has been proven not only =
in
> theory but also in reality.

Having a compiler capable of generating code for a target does not
suffice to cross-compile to that target.

Indeed, LLVMs build system contains logic for building the runtime
libraries for other targets in much the same way as GCC does.

It is a waste of time to build all N^2 (or even N^3) combinations.  So
don't do that.
=2D-=20
Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEKBAEWCgCyFiEE/uKz0RP8AKMWLWBhUsKUMB6ixJMFAmph6ZEbFIAAAAAABAAO
bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25z
Lm9wZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRGRUUyQjNEMTEzRkMwMEEzMTYyRDYw
NjE1MkMyOTQzMDFFQTJDNDkzGBxhYXJzZW5vdmljQGJheWxpYnJlLmNvbQAKCRBS
wpQwHqLEk8VVAQCjrD6dQxbjENzTBqUEMda+goVg7cqefP/mC4MDuQFArAD+IJOi
F3d7W4Iuj/vxUPg2NfXU6eGMeuStxeA52TYMfwE=
=FuGm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--