Comparing Bill and Karim's cross-compile scripts. Updating Bill's to gcc 3.2.3.

[Dan Kegel]

Dan Kegel wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
> 
>> 388: Karim fixes up paths in ld.so, but Bill doesn't.
>> Need to remove absolute paths from the ld.so in ${TARGET_PREFIX)/lib;
>> maybe Bill just forgot to mention that?
> 
> 
> Man, I'm getting confused.  glibc-2.1 had a binary as ld.so.
> I *think* glibc-2.2 has a text file for ld.so, and the corresponding
> binary is ld.so.1.
> Maybe when Bill wrote his script, the little text ld.so hadn't
> been introduced yet?

OK, I *was* confused!  The little text file I'm talking about is glibc.so,
not ld.so.  Sheesh.

I am finding lots of little problems like that in the patch I posted,
and should have an updated version before too long.

I'm really looking forward to the grand unified gnu toolchain script.
It'd be fun to get it to the point where we could use it to do
nightly tinderbox builds of cross toolchains, to keep the gnu
folks from accidentally breaking 'em...
maybe they'd even consider having a manual for how to put
together a full cross toolchain, something they've pooh-poohed for
a long time.
- Dan


-- 
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045


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