condensed version of question about toolchain build

Fri Sep 9 12:37:00 GMT 2005


Quoting "Robert P. J. Day" <>:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > 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.

If I'm not mislead, then you should _NOT_ build userland applications
(be it toolchains or what ever) against 'vanilla' kernel headers, but
using the sanitized headers.

Google a bit, and I'm sure you'll find usefull and in-depth explanations
about this.

Roughly, 'vanilla' kernel headers contain internal object descriptions and
functions, or even objects themselves, that shall not be available from
userland, and that is the reason why the sanitized headers were made. In
fact, they are extracted from the kernel tree and cleaned up, hence the
term 'sanitized'.

So IMHO your '2-pass' build is in fact the Good Way To Go (TM), whereas
using the kernel headers is a Bad Thing (TM).


Roaming in the world...

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

More information about the crossgcc mailing list