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]

Re: another proposed crosstool project


On Sun, 6 May 2007, Yann E. MORIN wrote:

> Hello Robert!
> All,
>
> On Saturday 05 May 2007 22:57, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

> >   a lot of the things that are normally choices would be fixed, to
> > represent the idea of building the *best* choice of toolchain.
>
> Unfortuantely, the cross-compiling world is not made of
> generalities, but mostly of singularities. While I agree that some
> options (eg. sysroot) could be set once and for all and not leave
> the user the choice because it would be worse if [s]he did set
> otherwise, others must be available.
>
> And it would mean that you target only the tupple
> linux-binutils-gcc-glibc. What about, say, cygwin, tcc and uClibc?
> Or even, Solaris (no, just kidding)!

again, don't make more out of this than what i'm proposing.  in order
to short-circuit some of the discussion, i've attached my old mini-ct
script which, as you can see, is fairly simplistic but has built
perfectly functional toolchains for some architectures.  (it's been a
while since i've looked at it myself, so i'm having to refresh my
memory as to why i did certain things.  :-)

once again, i'm not trying to address the corner cases, and i know
there's lots of them.  i'm trying to distill what's *essential* in the
simple cases, so there's still a couple questions i've asked for which
no one has suggested an answer:

1) is there any *theoretical* reason why the generated headers from
the latest kernel source tree shouldn't work for *all* builds?  yes or
no?  if not, why not?

2) is my recipe for configuring and building binutils acceptable?  yes
or no?

let's start with the simple stuff first and see where this goes, ok?

rday

p.s.  as i've already mentioned, one of the main reasons i wrote
mini-ct in the first place was just to clarify in my own mind what the
heck was going on in the build process.
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================

Attachment: mini-ct.sh
Description: Bourne shell script

--
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]