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] |
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote: > On Friday 10 April 2009 23:14:33 Thomas Charron wrote: >> ? And those of us who are caring about bare metal? > I've used a jtag to install a bootloader and linux kernel on bare metal, so > presumably you mean you want to build something other than linux system to > install on that bare metal? ?(Such as building busybox against > newlib/libgloss?) I'm talking about bare metal. Typically, these systems have no more RAM then is present on the processor. Like, 64k. There is no bootloader, no busybox, and most specifically, no OS. > How does this differ from building a very complicated bootloader, or linking > against a different C library? ?(If you're building a complete new system on > the bare metal, do you particularly care about binutils or gcc versions other > than "fairly recent"?) Yes. Since GCC is generally tested on 'real' systems, some versions perform different then others depending on the target processor itself. In some cases, occasionally a version of GCC simply won't work at all for a given processor. >> ? There is no single toolchain. ?That's an assumption that works for >> *your* environment. > Could be, but I still don't understand why. ?Care to explain? See above. bare metal *ISN"T* running Linux on a small box. It's another beast entirely. > I've built many different strange things with generic-ish toolchains, and > other than libgcc* being evil without --disable-shared, swapping out the > built-in libraries and headers after the toolchain is built is fairly > straightforward (for C anyway). ?You can do it as a wrapper even. > (I suppose you could be referring to languages other than C? ?C++ is a bit > more complicated, but then it always is. ?Java is its own little world, but > they put a lot of effort into portability. ?Haven't poked at Fortran since > the 90's.) Specifically, I've been working with a mashed in version of newlib, and newlib-lpc. In those cases, you actually don't use the GNU C library at all. Additionally, you can use newlib and gcc to compile C++ applications (however, no STL, etc support). I also have a small side project to try to move the uclibc++ libraries to bare metal. -- -- Thomas -- 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] |