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 Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Allan Clark wrote: > How much different should the resulting toolchain be for different > host compilers? possibly not at all, *provided* you can build with different host compilers. (my memory may be failing me, but i recall being the one who kind of whined and moaned about sanitized headers, because it turns out i needed them to solve a build problem i was having. could it have been using the experimental gcc-4.0.0 as the host compiler? damn, it seems so long ago ...) anyway, it may be that the end result is the same, but getting the build to work might require different patches. so, no, it's not clear whether you'd want to distinguish based on the host compiler, but i can't say for sure. > I would agree that "pxa271-2.4.19" would probably be the toolchain I > am building. It makes sense to give a logical name. what about a simple patch so that, if TOOLCOMBO is already defined in the environment, that's used instead of building the current string? and if that's done, a better name for that variable would be, perhaps, CHAINID or something, since it would just contain some unique string that only has to be meaningful to the builder. just a thought. rday p.s. has anyone submitted a patch to allow a selection of host compiler? so i can live dangerously and pick gcc4 if i want? ------ 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] |