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] |
Dan; Thanks so much for the precise instructions. Could you be so kind as to place this patch in the linux-2.4.21 crosstool patch directory in the next release? BTW, could you please document that adding : BINUTILS_EXTRA_CONFIG="LDFLAGS=-all-static" and GCC_EXTRA_CONFIG="LDFLAGS=-static" will result in a statically-linked cross compiler when you generate the next crosstool release candidate? Thanks, Ken On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 23:57, Dan Kegel wrote: > Ken Wolcott wrote: > >>Yup. I have a patch for that for linux-2.4.24 and 2.4.26, > >>it'll probably apply cleanly to 2.4.21. Give it a shot: > >>http://kegel.com/crosstool/crosstool-0.28-rc36/patches/linux-2.4.26/linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch > > > > Thanks for the tip. I'm not real up on diff -Naur, and the proper way > > to make changes :-( I think I found out that the difference is that > > line 500 in linux-2.4.26/Makefile should be 493 in > > linux-2.4.21/Makefile. I hope that it works correctly. How do you > > "efficiently* and correctly port a patch this simple? :-) > > You don't - since it still applies cleanly, you don't need to make any changes at all! > > > What I did was the following: > > > > in a new directory: > > tar xvjf linux-2.4.21.tar.bz2 > > mv linux-2.4.21 linux-2.4.21a > > tar xvjf linux-2.4.21.tar.bz2 > > modify the linux-2.4.21/Makefile "find" line > > diff -Naur linux-2.4.21/Makefile linux-2.4.21a/Makefile > bozo > > > > > > tar xvzf crosstool-0.27-r36 > > mv crosstool-0.27-r36 crosstool-0.27-r36a > > tar xvzf crosstool-0.27-r36 > > mv crosstool-0.27-r36 crosstool-0.27-r36b > > cd crosstool-0.28-rc36b/patches > > cp bozo \ > > crosstool-0.28-rc36b/patches/linux-2.4.21/linux-2.4.21-mkdep-xargs.patch > > diff -Naur crosstool-0.28-rc36a crosstool-0.28-rc36b > > > > > > Certainly there must be a more efficient way than this to port a simple > > kernel patch :-) > > Well, yes. To make it squeaky-clean, you would do: > > $ cd linux-2.4.21 > $ cp Makefile Makefile.old > $ wget http://kegel.com/crosstool/crosstool-0.28-rc36/patches/linux-2.4.26/linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch > $ patch -p1 < linux-2.4.26-mkdep-xargs.patch > patching file Makefile > Hunk #1 succeeded at 493 (offset -7 lines). > $ cd .. > $ diff -u linux-2.4.21/Makefile{.old,} > ~/linux-2.4.21-mkdep-xargs.patch > > but that shouldn't be needed unless the patch only applied with > fuzz (crosstool is paranoid, and doesn't use fuzz when applying patches). > > > I'm also a wee-bit puzzled. Why wouldn't such an obvious fix be > > successfully submitted to the kernel folks to be a permanent fix? > > Certainly this is more "correct" :-) > > Yes. In fact, it's not a bad patch for the Trivial Patch Monkey, > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/trivial/ > Maybe I'll submit it. > > BTW the 2.6 kernel doesn't suffer from this problem as far as I know. > - Dan -- Kenneth A. Wolcott Consultant, Acquisition Systems - Clinical Systems Engineering GE Healthcare Information Technologies 8200 West Tower Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53223 TWR-2-00-195 (pillar F-3) Phone: 414/362-2720 Email: Ken.Wolcott@med.ge.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] |