condensed version of question about toolchain build

Robert P. J. Day
Fri Sep 9 10:38:00 GMT 2005

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dan Kegel wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >   i'm doing another build for sh3eb and i think i've sort of isolated
> > a problem (at least for this).
> >
> >   what *works* is that i can build the toolchain with san. headers and
> > then configure a kernel source tree and use that toolchain to compile
> > the kernel as a whole separate operation.  (for this to work, i have
> > to set PATH appropriately, and set
> > CROSS_COMPILE=sh3eb-unknown-linux-gnu).  in short, it works if i do it
> > in two steps.
> Hey, glad to hear it.  You should mention which version of the kernel,
> crosstool, .dat file, etc.

hey, even a blind squirrel finds the occaional acorn.  details to
follow after i'm *sure* i didn't screw anything up.

> >   if i try to do it all in one step, the compile of the kernel fails
> > as if it's using the wrong compiler.  i'm redoing the build and saving
> > the output for inspection but does the above make any sense?  (the
> > errors i get from the kernel build are as if the compiler doesn't
> > understand what are obviously SH3-specific compile options.)
> By "in one step", what do you mean exactly?
> Telling crosstool to use the non-sanitized headers, perhaps?

sorry, that was badly worded so let me turn this into a much simpler
question.  is there any drawback to building a toolchain using
sanitized headers as opposed to a full kernel source tree?  i ask
since it appears that it's the kernel configuration step that's
causing the problem, and that's obviously bypassed if you're just
using headers.

does that make sense?


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

More information about the crossgcc mailing list