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]

Re: newbie question: how to patch for an arm-920TDI target using crosstool?


Hi Dan;

  Yeah, I used Perforce at my last job in California.  While I was at Cygnus, 
"Mr. Bitkeeper" :-) came to discuss the philosophy and architecture of 
bitkeeper with us at a brown-bag lunch.  Very interesting.  Never got a 
chance to use bitkeeper though...

  Thanks for posting on the gcc mailing list about my being unable to generate 
a statically linked gcc via configure directly.  Guess I didn't have the guts 
to post about that issue on the gcc mailing list myself yet :-)

  Interesting point about using LSB (Linux Standards Base).  I'll look into 
that as well.

  One of my colleagues here is using the LSF (Linux From Scratch) philosophy 
to get her compiler built (but did not need a cross compiler).  I think she 
modified the Makefile to get her statically linked gcc.

Thanks,
Ken

On Wednesday 15 October 2003 11:08, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Wolcott, Ken (MED, Compuware) wrote:
> >   Thank you for your condolences :-)  I'd prefer CVS over ClearCase, but
> > that's what they use here and they think they are getting a good deal :-)
>
> Wow.  Someone's on crack :-)   Perforce or Bitkeeper, that's the ticket
> if you want to pay...
>
> >   I was unable to convince gcc 3.3 configure to generate statically by
> > using "--disable-shared" or "--enable-static", but if I modified the
> > Makefile generated by configure so that the LD flag was given "-static"
> > rather than no arguments, it seemed to work as ldd reported no linkages
> > to external libraries.  So I guess I need to figure out how to modify the
> > LD line in the associated Makefile(s) using sed (?) after configure has
> > run for gcc.  I think that it is a configure bug in gcc that does not
> > place the "-static" argument to LD, but I'm a newbie, not sure I can
> > substantiate that opinion.
>
> I just posted the question on the gcc mailing list, let's see what they
> say.
>
> >   Meanwhile, I'll be looking at the crosstool script(s) more intently to
> > understand the magic :-)
>
> Good man.
>
> >   We are using Red Hat 8.0 primarily, but some are using Red Hat 9.0 and
> > who knows what some people have done to modify/upgrade/enhance/customize
> > their systems.  Might have some people using Debian or Slackware, not
> > sure.
>
> Good luck; who knows, maybe even static binaries might not shield
> you from all the evil that lurks out there.  You might want to
> consider building LSB executables for gcc instead at some point;
> that's the 'kosher' way to get portability.  All you have to do
> is run the crosstool script inside the LSB build environment, I think,
> and then do a trivial LSB packaging of the resulting directory tree.
> It's something I've been meaning to try lately but haven't gotten around to
> it.
>
> - Dan

------
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]