Re: binutils-uClibc followup patch

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:09:05PM -0800, Carl Miller wrote:
>
> > > > Agree with the intent of the patches. I cannot build binutils however. I
> > > > configure with --target=i386-pc-linux-uclibc but I get the following error
> > > > when building:
>
> Is there any reason not to use the obvious "simple, no patching needed"
> tuple: i386-uclibc-linux-gnu ?

Which brings up the question: how about I start using the tuple
  i386-glibc-linux-gnu
for crosstool's glibc toolchains, just to be uniform?
That second field is supposed to be for vendor name, but in the free
software world, the C library name seems like a good thing to stick there...

There is one small hitch: on the ppc, I've been using that second
field to indicate cpu type, since ppc405-unknown-linux-gnu doesn't
work.  Maybe I should submit gcc/glibc/binutils patches to allow ppc405
etc. in the first field...

- 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