Mon Sep 19 18:26:00 GMT 2005
>From: David Karlton
>Sent: 19 September 2005 19:20
> Thanks for the link! I modified linux.h (there was no linux64.h in my
> mips folder) to remove the ASM_PREFERRED_EH_DATA_FORMAT define, and am
> trying to build again.
Sounds good, although I don't do MIPS and I haven't studied that patch,
but I'd guess that since you're not on 64-bit MIPS that would be the right
thing to do.
> Stupid question: if our target device has gcc 3.3.4 and glibc 2.3.2
> libraries installed (and we can't change this), can I potentially build
> a more updated toolchain (eg. gcc 4.0) and have binaries compiled by it
> be backward compatible to run on the target machine?
On the whole: no. There is no guarantee of binary compatibility across
major version number changes, or even minor ones. Any gcc version x.y.*
should generate compatible code with any other gcc x.y.*, but you can't be
sure that objects from gcc x.y+1.* will work with it, nor x+1.*.*.
However, that's about *guarantees*. In practice, I think most
3.4.*-generated objects are going to be compatible with most 3.3.*-generated
objects, but that may depend on target and on whether you're using C++ or
just plain C and whether it's shared libs or statically linked...... you get
the picture. I'd recommend sticking more-or-less with the mfr's approved
versions on the whole, unless there's some massive problem with them.
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to firstname.lastname@example.org
More information about the crossgcc