This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See crosstool-NG 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 16 July 2012 04:40, Maurizio Vitale <mrz.vtl@gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Hope <michael.hope <at> linaro.org> writes: > >> >> Hi there. Why does crosstool-NG create a symlink from >> $tuple/$sysroot/lib to $tuple/lib? It causes GCC to install support >> libraries like libgcc_s.so into the sysroot instead of the default >> location which makes it tricky to replace the sysroot later. >> >> For our binary builds we plan to supply a few different sysroots >> including a minimal libc, developer image with GTK and X, and a >> desktop image with a wide range of packages. They'll come as tarballs >> and the intent is for people to delete the old $tuple/$sysroot and >> extract the new one in its place. Currently this means that the >> support libraries will also get deleted. The target comes with these >> libraries preinstalled. >> > > I'm exploring similar sysroot setups (but in my case I want the sysroot to work > for both gcc and clang). Other than size, what would go wrong with having all > sysroots including the GCC's support libraries and whatever additional library > the specific sysroot introduces? > Obviously it would require redistribution of all sysroot tarfiles whenever the > compiler toolchain changes, but other than that and size, I don't see problems. > I've just started with this setup, so I might be missing the obvious. Hi Maurizio. We release monthly so the cost would be unfortunate. -- Michael -- 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] |