[oe] Standalone gcc library builds

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 11:33 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 29-03-10 23:42, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 10:42 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> I have had gcc build all runtimes libraries separately. I think we should
> >> device gcc build and we can disable building certain directories via
> >> --disable-<dir>. We dont have to stash libgcc. Its not a big library and
> >> its probably better to rebuild it along with rest of runtime libraries IMO
> >> and probably we should have packages for each language runtime so people
> >> who dont need C++ or Java or fortran dont have to build those. The same
> >> should be tunable in gcc builds too.
> > 
> > I talked with Khem on irc but just for the record here, I've done some
> > testing with gcc 4.3.3 in Poky and have pushed my results to:
> > 
> > http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky/log/?h=master-gcc-runtime-testing
> > 
> > This adds a gcc-runtime recipe which builds libgcc, libssp and libstdc++
> > as test cases. It will be possible to build other runtime libs
> > conditionally on whether they're enabled like libfortran easily enough.
> 
> Can't we have seperate recipes for ssp, stdc++, fortran, java, etc? I
> don't think we need USEFLAGs for this when we build them seperately anyway.

We'd not be using USEFLAGS, we'd just be looking at the line which tells
gcc itself which bits to build. Having separate recipes doesn't solve
the problem since we'd still have to work out whether the compiler for a
given lib was built and then we enter a dependency nightmare working out
which packages need which combinations of compilers and compiler libs.

So we can have separate recipes but think through the issues and see
whether you still like the idea... 

Cheers,

Richard