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] |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes: > On Wednesday 26 September 2012 00:47:07 Esben Haabendal wrote: >> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes: >> >> I will rework the patch to set CT_TARGET_KERNEL depending on both >> >> CT_ARCH_USE_MMU and CT_ARCH. So "linux" for bfin and "uclinux" for >> >> m68k. >> > >> > hard coding one way or the other is wrong. bfin-uclinux is valid, as is >> > m68k- uclinux and arm-uclinux and mips-uclinux and many other targets. >> >> Well, the fact is that either GCC has to be changed to handle >> linux/uclinux in the arch tuple to your preferences, or ct-ng has to be >> able to handle it. The current situations makes ct-ng unable to build >> linux-uclibc for m68k cpus without mmu. > > i don't know what the selection of ct-ng looks like as i don't use it. i'm > just clarifying incorrect statements made and giving background. Yes, thank you, highly appreciated. I don't know why, but I somehow just assumed that FD_PIC_ELF were supported by m68k, but without support in both GCC or Linux I guess I was being slightly optimistic ;-) > if you want to target m68k systems running Linux w/out an mmu using > the FLAT format, then "m68k-uclinux" is the tuple you want to use. And that is exactly what we will do, which then requires a bit of logic to not mess up the bfin arch in ct-ng. /Esben -- 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] |