Cross toolchain support for SPUs on Cell / ppc64

[Jochen Roth]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Our suggestion would be to build spu-binutils from the same source as 
>> the system gcc for ppc is build.
> Theoretically, this would be one possibility, however, practice tells
> this doesn't work, because there always will be situations when you will
> want to patch/apply hacks to your cross-binutils, or when
> target-specific bugs force your cross-binutils to use a different
> version of binutils than of the native binutils.

Yes, we need a separate spu-binutils package for the assembly anyway.
And then we can build the spu-binutils from the same source tree as the 
systems binutils package. And of course add some patches for target 
specific bugs if needed. I think this is also the way avr-binutils does.

The systems binutils package has to be compiled with at least the option 
--enable-target=spu or even better with --enable-target=all

What is the right directory where SPU include files should go?
I just looked into avr-libc and they put everything in /usr/avr/ ..

So would it be correct to put spu related files in /usr/spu/ and 
subdirectories?

>> For spu-newlib we'd have to create a separate package as we'd have for 
>> spu-gdb.
> This is one option, but it raises problems with bootstrapping GCC.
> 
> The alternative is building newlib+gcc one-tree-style (building newlib
> and gcc at the same time). It's what I do for my cross-toolchains.

Yes, right, that is another thing we have to care about.


Btw, is there any Fedora cross-toolchain guide I should be aware of?

Thanks!

-- 

Jochen