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] |
On 28 April 2006 12:08, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > CC = gcc > LD = ld > STRIP = strip > > and so on, so one can override the variables with the corresponding > cross-compile values. That is basically a de-facto standard. > even more generally, the build process might need access to *both* > the cross-compile tools and the native tools (like the linux kernel > does), so you might see: > > CC := ${CROSS_COMPILE}cc > LD := ${CROSS_COMPILE}ld > > and another set for the native tools: > > HOSTCC = gcc > HOSTLD = ld > > etc. In GNU terms, these would be CC/LD and CC_FOR_TARGET/LD_FOR_TARGET. > what approach do people here use? Autotools > that is, if i don't want to get > into major pain with autotools and so on, is there a preferred way to > make your software easily cross-compilable? Autotools > is there a *standard* way to do it? thanks. Autotools. Sorry! You can and should still usefully use CC/LD macro names in your makefiles, but cross-compiliation and portabililty in general are much broader issues than just finding the correct compiler and assembler; different systems have different system calls, different libraries, place function definitions in different headers or have non-compatible arguments or semantics for the same named functions; autotools handles all this for you in addition to toolchain selection! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- 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] |