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] |
I'm not really answering your question neither..:) But would like to let me know I'm doing exactly the same experiment. I tried to build mips-wrs-vxworks tool chain with Tornado 2.0, but failed. It turns out that upgrading our tornado to version 2.1.1 is a more realistic way(in my personal opinion) to get the advantage of latest compiler. (gcc 2.96 comes with our T2.1.1 package) I might even upgrade the gcc to 3.x version, but still get stuck in porting the BSP.... For your reference only... Bear. Ross A. Osborn wrote: >I'm not really answering your question but I have a couple of related >questions of my own. > >We have vxworks for both ppc and 68k processors. Both of the cross >compilers report the same version info: > >$ ccppc --version >cygnus-2.7.2-960126 egcs-971225 tornado 2.0 > > >This looks to me like an antique version of egcs. Is this true? Are >newer versions of gcc significantly better than this version? My >impression has been that a lot of the work on the compiler in the last >several years has been to improve C++ compiling. We have a lot of C++ >here so would trying to build our own cross compiler be worth the >effort? > >Thanks, > >Ross > >------ >Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ >Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com > ------ 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] |