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]

Re: More crosstool-0.42-glibc-2.4-gcc-4.1.0-nptl


--- Robert Schwebel <robert@schwebel.de> wrote:

> Steven,
> 
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:16:05AM +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 08:42:24AM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> > > > I've tried your patch on a debian unstable machine with gcc-4.0.3,
> > > > 2.16.1cvs20060117-1 and glibc-2.3.6-7 and get this error from the
> > > > glibc startfiles stage: 
> > 
> > You probably would be better off with gcc-4.1.0/glibc-2.4.  The EABI
> > merge caused a lot of flux through 4.0.x and has only stablised in
> > 4.1.x.
> 
> The problem is that for our PTXdist users (PTXdist uses crosstool
> internally) normal people, using normal distributions, should be able to
> build a cross toolchain, which means that we are more or less fixed to
> what the distributions have these days. And that's what even Debian
> Unstable currently has. 
> 
> But if it doesn't work, it doesn't work :-)
I've not tried non-EABI NPTL, going EABI will of course break everything.. ;-)
Maybe somebody here has..?

Debian is working on an ARM EABI/NPTL distribution I don't know if that's much
help to you though?
> 
> > > Update: this seems to happen when you change the -mcpu thing from the
> > > arm926 to strongarm. Does that mean that for certain ARM sub archs there
> > > is something missing in binutils? 
> >
> > It is quite possible.  Are you using an actual StrongARM? 
> 
> No, we mainly use PXA255, PXA270, h720x, i.MX, netX and NetSilicon CPUs.
> The thing is that, for a generic ARM softfloat toolchain, it should be
> generic. And setting the cpu to strongarm gave us toolchains which
> worked on all these architectures. 
If you want to continue targetting strongarm you may have to tweak binutils a
little.  I'll take a look if I get a moment.  StrongARM is the closest common
architecture for them all then?  You maybe best to just build a completely
generic ARM toolchain with mutlilib and use multiple spec files?


Steve

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

--
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]