[ECOS] Re: GCC: different OS targets.

[Jonathan Larmour]

Brendan Simon wrote:
> 
> Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> It would be nice to have just one compiler but I think I could live with having
> one compiler for each ABI, but having multiple compilers for the same ABI (eg
> EABI) seems wasteful.  I would probably still push for the one compiler and be
> able to select the multilibs to build (specify each lib or family of libs via
> configure).

But then you wouldn't have a single compiler - you would only have a single
source base. You would need to recompile things everytime you needed a new
multilib. Is this really that much better? Lazy compilation would be an
interesting idea though - thus hammering home the benefits of Open Source
:-).

> > BTW, for these reasons, making eCos use the standard toolchain isn't as
> > clean as we would like. We override the linker script, and use -nostdlib to
> > avoid picking up the default crt0's and libc. I don't know how easy it is
> > for other OS's to do something similar though.
> 
> Surely this is easily accomplised via the specs file (eg. -mecos).

Sure, if you are willing to encourage users to patch existing spec files
:-). Alternatively, you just do what we do and encourage users to use
Makefiles so they have less to type. That means you aren't forcing a user to
tamper with an existing toolchain, which they may be using for non-eCos
purposes as well.

Jifl
-- 
Cygnus Solutions, 35 Cambridge Place, Cambridge, UK.  Tel: +44 (1223) 728762
"I used to have an open mind but || Get yer free open source RTOS's here...
 my brains kept falling out."    || http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ecos
Help fight spam! http://spam.abuse.net/  These opinions are all my own fault

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com