This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com 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[4]: Kernel Header Files

From: Bora Þahin <bora dot sahin at ttnet dot net dot tr>
To: crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:12:16 +0200
Subject: Re[4]: Kernel Header Files
References: <13817752827.20050130202632@ttnet.net.tr><528646bc050131080741e74494@mail.gmail.com><14123832539.20050201181030@ttnet.net.tr><528646bc05020108387c998d78@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: Bora Þahin <bora dot sahin at ttnet dot net dot tr>

Hi,

Grant> Yes; otherwise how would Linux binaries be portable between different
Grant> boards with the same architecture?

In your reply to me,
   "You probably do NOT need to use your special kernel unless you've changed the syscall interfaces."
as you are using 'NOT' with capital letters, I thought as if you were emphasizing something
different or special.

But this also mean that specially patched kernel can be used also for kernel headers. Because there
is no syscall change. This confused my mind.

Give me my poor English...


-- 
Bora SAHIN


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re[4]: Kernel Header Files
  - From: Grant Likely

References:
- Re[2]: Kernel Header Files
  - From: Bora Þahin
- Re: Re[2]: Kernel Header Files
  - From: Grant Likely

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