[PATCH] Updated NPTL toolchain patch...
Jean-Christophe Dubois
jdubois@mc.com
Tue Apr 5 15:02:00 GMT 2005
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 07:47 -0700, Daniel Kegel wrote:
> Jean-Christophe Dubois wrote:
> > However, it seems I found another way to have the overall crosstool.sh
> > script to succeed on my system. For all "gcc" configure phase (3 places
> > in the crosstool script), I am "forcing" the as/ld binaries to use the
> > following way (patch attached).
> >
> > --with-gnu-as \
> > --with-as=${PREFIX}/bin/${TARGET}-as \
> > --with-gnu-ld \
> > --with-ld=${PREFIX}/bin/${TARGET}-ld \
> >
> > Without this it looks like somewhere the wrong assembler or linker is
> > chosen (on solaris) by the generated cross-compilers. Does this look bad
> > or acceptable? How do you feel about it?
> >
> > This allows the script to complete successfully on Solaris (and I guess
> > on any other platform). I still have to test the resulting tool chain
> > though.
>
> It's a fine idea. Could you
> repeat your diff against a clean copy of crosstool?
> You seem to have a lot of extra stuff in your patch.
Well the patch also include all the changes added to crosstool.sh (0.30)
by the NPTL patch provided Sunday. I am not sure how I am suppose to
provide the patch of a patch. Any guidance?
> I might prefer to put those extra options in a shell
> variable if they get referenced a lot of places,
> and add a comment explaining why they're needed.
Thant would be fine. Basically the 4 lines above are there to guaranty
which assembler/linker is used by the generated cross-compiler. Without
this some bad defaults might be selected (at least on Solaris).
> - 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
More information about the crossgcc
mailing list