binutils doesn't fully support --target=ppc-linux

Dan Kegel
Wed Jul 9 19:36:00 GMT 2003

Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
>> Recent binutils will build fine with --target=ppc-linux, but ...
>> binutils- lists lots of targets,
>> including powerpc-*, but doesn't mention ppc-* at all.
>> So... I guess I should use target=powerpc-blah-linux-gnu instead of 
>> target=ppc-blah-linux-gnu?
>> Or should I patch binutils to recognize the shorter ppc name?
> Perhaps a stupid question, but what does it do with "powerpc-linux"?

It barfs with "not a triple".  I'm testing powerpc-blah-linux-gnu now,
that seems to be happier offhand.

> My vote is for the patch to make it take ppc-linux...

I found the reason not to.  In the binutils test cases, exceptions
are coded using powerpc wildcards, e.g.

./ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp:         setup_xfail "powerpc-*-linux*"
./ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp:         setup_xfail "powerpc-*-linux*"
./ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp:             setup_xfail "powerpc-*-linux*"
./ld-shared/shared.exp: setup_xfail "powerpc-*-linux*"
./ld-srec/srec.exp:     setup_xfail "powerpc64*-*-*"
./ld-srec/srec.exp:     setup_xfail "powerpc*-*-*64*"
./ld-srec/srec.exp:# setup_xfail "powerpc*-*-eabi*"
./ld-srec/srec.exp:setup_xfail "powerpc*-*-eabi*"

thus allowing ppc as a synonym would mean having to do some
duplication in the testcase exception lists.  The gcc testsuite
has the same property.  The number of hits involved is fairly small,
but it'd be a hassle.

And there we have it.  If you want to be able to run the testsuites,
you really should be using powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu instead of ppc-linux.
Sad but true.

I guess this calls for another release of crosstool :-)
- Dan

Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ,
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to

More information about the crossgcc mailing list