This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: undefined reference to `copysignl' with uclibc on powerpc


On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 18:07 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: 
> All,
> 
> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 18:00:58 Doug Crawford wrote:
> > I have this error in the libgomp configure.log when building gcc 4.5.1 with 
> > uclibc for powerpc.  From an earlier post I believe the issue is copysignl is 
> > defined in libm rather than libc for uclibc.  But, I did not see any 
> > resolution.  Does anybody have a suggestion for this problem?
> 
> Please see: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg00237.html
> The patch has not been ported to gcc-4.5 yet.
> 
> And because of the recent flamewar on patches, I'm reluctant to add it myself
> (which makes gcc-4.5 almost un-buildable for now, which is why it is still
> marked as being 'EXPERIMENTAL' in crosstool-NG)... :-/

FWIW, I would be very happy to see you trying to ignore those attempted
flamewars and continue to provide workarounds for known toolchain
problems as long as no proper fix is available. Of-course, as soon as a
proper fix (or better workaround) is available, it should replace the
previous workaround.

For me, the whole reason for having ct-ng is to have a common working
ground for building the best available cross  toolchains.  Refusing to
put workarounds in ct-ng forces all the rest of us to find and apply
these workarounds by ourselves, which I can only find counter-productive
and complete against the reason for having a ct-ng project.

I understand (and appreciate) the fact that some people would like to
avoid workarounds for putting maximum preasure on getting proper
solutions for the problems. But ct-ng just isn't the place for this.
This argumentation path can be extended to completely wipe out ct-ng, as
all the involved software arguments should support all platforms and all
cross combinations out of the box, in which case ct-ng could be replaced
by a simple sequence of "./configure;make;make install".  When that
happens, I will be more than happy. But until then, please let us keep
ct-ng as the way to cooperate on providing the best method for building
cross toolchains.

In other words: keep up the good work Yann!  And let us have more of
it :-)

Thanks!
Esben


--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]