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: linux/autoconf.h problem


Marius Groeger wrote:
This argument is definitely true for someone wanting to compile a
kernely. To what extent, however, does this affect the generation of
toolchains? In other words, does the toolchain, libc most likely,
depend on specific CONFIG_* options, and if so, which?

There might be a few. Page size is set by config options on some arches, for instance.

Maybe it would be a good idea to start collecting such critical CONFIG
switches on a per-arch basis, what do you think?

Sure. You might have a look at the couple of projects out there that are defining kernel headers outside the kernel tree just for things like glibc that need to know the kernel ABI. I think they're 2.6 only, but they might be handy for crosstool in the future.

For completeness, besides the linux/autoconf.h file a toolchain also
requires linux/version.h. Obviously this is an arch invariant, though.
In addition, the include/asm link is needed.

It gets worse. Look at how crosstool.sh makes that link now...


- 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]