Request for testing: canadian rework

Esben Haabendal
Sat Apr 21 18:46:00 GMT 2012

"Yann E. MORIN" <> writes:

> Changes (from 4.000 feet high):
>   - no need for a pre-exisiting x-compiler for the target
>   - a complete x-compiler for target is built for internal use, but is not
>     exported for the user to use

Will it still be possible to use a pre-existing x-compiler for target?

When building let's say 3 canadian-cross crompilers, fx.

i686-linux -> arm-linux
x86_64-linux -> arm-linux
mingw32 -> arm-linux

It would be nice to be able to not have to build the same target
x-compiler three times.

> So yes, build time has increased significantly because we build one more
> compiler suite. But this had to be done previously, too, albeit in a
> separate incantation to crosstool-NG, so all-in-all, we should be roughly
> back on-track, time-wise, even a little bit faster (~ 3%-5% faster) from
> my little testing.

For the single canadian case, that is.

> What could yet be improved in this area:
>   - change the {cross,cross-native,canadian} selection from a radio-button
>     to a multi-select, so it is possible to build all three compilers in one
>     ct-ng incantation, thus guaranteeing homgeneity across all three


But if you need more than one canadian-cross compiler...

>   - these two will first need proper prefix vs. destdir support (which is
>     totally lacking now)
>   - 'cross-native' will need some love, as it needs to generate a non-
>     sysrooted toolchain (or use a sysroot of / which looks odd)
>   - possibly drop the 'native' case, for which I don't really see the point
>     (there's no code right now, anyway)
> Regards,
> Yann E. MORIN.

For unsubscribe information see

More information about the crossgcc mailing list