can build toolchain in two steps, but not one

Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com
Sat Sep 10 19:39:00 GMT 2005


Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Dan Kegel wrote:
> 
> 
>>Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>
>>>credit where credit is due, it was a private e-mail from michael
>>>that pointed me at the appropriate architecture makefile as the
>>>source for some unwanted compiler options when trying to run the
>>>*native* compiler.
>>
>>How about posting a patch to fix the kernel sources, now that you've
>>found the problem?
> 
> 
> but, again, is this really the direction you want to take? 

Think about it... are toolchains the only thing I build?

> it could
> conceivably require one patch per architecture, whereas the sanitized
> headers seem like such a simpler and safer solution.  and patching the
> kernel source might not be a one-time thing as some future feature
> might screw up the build process yet again.  why take the chance?

Because I want to build the kernel, perhaps?

I'm proposing that you really fix the kernel Makefile,
for real, and submit the patch, for real.
- Dan

-- 
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer?  See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html

------
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