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 Tuesday 25 September 2012 17:18:31 Esben Haabendal wrote: > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes: > > On Tuesday 25 September 2012 14:18:38 Esben Haabendal wrote: > >> What arch tuple should then be used for linux with uClibc? I don't see > >> the benefit of not being able to tell it apart from uClinux/FDPIC-ELF > >> with uClibc. > > > > i don't understand the question. "uclinux" means you're running Linux > > with uClibc, as does "linux-uclibc". > > I dare to say "no". With *-*-uclinux-* you are saying you are running > Linux without mmu. With *-*-linux-uclibc or *-*-uclinux-uclibc you are > saying you are running Linux with uClibc. Linux is Linux. "uclinux" is a dead term which has no bearing anymore and hasn't for years. you run Linux w/mmu support turned on or turned off, but you're running Linux in either case. thus saying "Linux with uClibc" is meaningless to mmu status. Blackfin doesn't have a MMU and most likely never will. bfin-linux-uclibc is for running the FDPIC-ELF format with uClibc under Linux. we build with MMU support turned off, but *gcc* does not care at all either way. uClibc and Linux is configured with the MMU turned off. > With some m68k cpus, you are able to use either Linux with glibc, Linux > (with mmu) with uClibc, or Linux (without mmu, uCLinux) with uClibc. It > would be rather handy to be able to use different arch tuples for all 3 > cases. running Linux w/mmu support enabled on a processor with a MMU can execute code compiled for a system w/mmu disabled. there's no magic here, just a different file format (FLAT) and certain functions disabled (like fork). similarly, if a Blackfin processor was released with a MMU enabled, i could take all the code i already have compiled today and run it perfectly fine on that. > 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. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |