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] |
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Allan Clark wrote: ... snip ... > Is there a difference whether I build a toolchain with linux headers > from 2.4.19 versus one with headers from 2.6.12? > > I ask this question to make a point: should the TOOLCHAIN variable > be expanded to include kernel version as well? > gcc-3.4.3-glibc-2.2.5-linux-2.4.19 ? (actually, i think it's the TOOLCOMBO variable you're thinking of.) this is something i've wondered about for a while. if you really wanted to be pedantic, the TOOLCOMBO variable would technically include *all* of the versions of gcc, glibc, binutils, the linux kernel, whether sanitized headers were used, and maybe even the version of the host compiler. obviously, that's absurd but it sure seems to be tending in that direction. what about just overriding that whole combo with some meaningful (to the builder) keyword. for instance, if i'm building an ARM toolchain for my zaurus, i'd just as soon replace that whole string with "zaurus" since i would know what that meant, and i really don't care if anyone else understands the underlying combination. thoughts? rday ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |