binutils-uClibc followup patch

Dan Kegel
Tue Jan 6 06:11:00 GMT 2004

Carl Miller wrote:
>>>Is there any reason not to use the obvious "simple, no patching needed"
>>>tuple: i386-uclibc-linux-gnu ?
>>Which brings up the question: how about I start using the tuple
>>  i386-glibc-linux-gnu
>>for crosstool's glibc toolchains, just to be uniform?
>>That second field is supposed to be for vendor name, but in the free
>>software world, the C library name seems like a good thing to stick there...
> I was under the impression that the -gnu fourth field specified C library.
> Thus, i386-glibc-linux-gnu would actually be calling out glibc twice, and
> i386-uclibc-linux-gnu would actually be calling out two different C
> libraries.  That's why I chose to replace the -gnu suffix.

I suspect that the place to go for answers here is config.sub.
added *-linux-uclibc* as a legal value.
So Carl's right, it seems.
- Dan

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

More information about the crossgcc mailing list