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 Tuesday 22 November 2011 20:48:15 Michael Hope wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > Otherwise, I agree with Mike: Why is it needed to disable 'sim' in the > > cross-gdb? If the build is broken for some archs, it should rather be > > fixed. At least, disabling/enabling 'sim' should be a config option, > > so users that want to try and/or fix it have an easy way to. > > I'd like to disable sim as it isn't useful when building for a GLIBC > target and it's one more thing to support. ARM don't want to > distribute a binary simulator due to IP reasons which I must admit > I've never understood :) that's not generally true. it depends on the target whether the sim supports Linux syscalls, dynamic libraries, etc... the Blackfin sim certainly supports not only newlib/bare metal code (which also includes Linux/bootloaders), but also uClibc/FDPIC/FLAT Linux user programs. i've seen other sims in there that support Linux userland targets. sounds like it should be made into a config option for people to control if *they* don't want the sim. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |