linux/autoconf.h problem

[Daniel Kegel]

Marius Groeger wrote:
> This argument is definitely true for someone wanting to compile a
> kernely. To what extent, however, does this affect the generation of
> toolchains? In other words, does the toolchain, libc most likely,
> depend on specific CONFIG_* options, and if so, which?

There might be a few. Page size is set by config options on
some arches, for instance.

> Maybe it would be a good idea to start collecting such critical CONFIG
> switches on a per-arch basis, what do you think?

Sure.  You might have a look at the couple of projects
out there that are defining kernel headers outside
the kernel tree just for things like glibc that need
to know the kernel ABI.  I think they're 2.6 only, but
they might be handy for crosstool in the future.

> For completeness, besides the linux/autoconf.h file a toolchain also
> requires linux/version.h. Obviously this is an arch invariant, though.
> In addition, the include/asm link is needed.

It gets worse.  Look at how crosstool.sh makes that link now...

- Dan


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