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] |
i'm hoping someone can clarify something for me regarding the entries in the crosstool matrix at: http://kegel.com/crosstool/crosstool-0.43/buildlogs/ given the numerous combinations in that table, at what point can you consider one combination to have been superseded or obsoleted by another? for example, let's say i can build a toolchain with gcc-4.0.2 and a bunch of other components. i then find out i can build an equally functional toolchain with exactly the same components except with gcc-4.0.3. is there any point recording that gcc-4.0.2 works once i have gcc-4.0.3 working equally well (all other things being equal)? of course, i appreciate that it's potentially useful to have every single combination recorded but, once the table gets that huge, is there some categorization that lets us say that combination "A" is effectively subsumed by combination "B" *if* they both appear to have precisely the same functionality? more to the point, is there any value in recording that some combination *fails* to build if a slightly newer combination *succeeds*? thoughts? rday p.s. as a concrete example, as i've mentioned before, i've built what appears to be a functioning x86_64 toolchain with the following combination: gcc-4.0.4 glibc-2.3.6 binutils-2.17 linux-2.6.15.4 linux-libc-headers-2.6.12.0 gdb-6.6 i've used the result to cross-compile the kernel, and install and reboot on an x86_64 system, so i've verified that that toolchain appears to be robust enough to compile a functional kernel. once i've established that that appears to be a working combination for x86_64, if someone *else* wanted to build an x86-64 toolchain, why would they spend a lot of time looking for other possible working combinations once i've given them one? what value would they get out of knowing that earlier combinations have problems? p.p.s. let me throw out another idea -- there should be, somewhere, the results of trying to build a toolchain for every possible architecture with the absolute *latest* available combination of software components. i think it would be an informative benchmark to see how well (or how badly) builds go with the leading edge stuff. even if every single one of those builds fail, that would still be nice to know. -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== -- 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] |