[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora and Cross Compiling

On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 15:59 -0600, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
>   > Do we _actually_ need to build parts of glibc? Could we not get away
> > with a fake DSO which just provides the few symbols libgcc uses?
> You can do that, but it's a bad idea.  Since glibc is a moving target, 
> libgcc's configurey might not turn on something that is valid because it 
> can't detect the support for it.  That's why we have the two stage 
> process to begin with.

You're speaking of the things which libgcc requires from glibc. That
really is a _minimal_ set of functions. Is there _anything_ it actually
tries to automatically detect -- _anything_ which might be turned off in
libgcc because autocrap thinks glibc won't support it?

> > Or do we even need to build the dynamic libgcc _with_ the compiler at
> > all?
> Need?  Depends on what you're willing to put into it...


> > Actually it happens for me every time I build a cross-compiler.
> > But perhaps it doesn't _need_ to; you're right.
> What if you're not building from scratch- instead building iteratively? 
>   What if it's in Fedora so you aren't building one in the first place?

Heh, the latter would be nice :)

> Cross compile the native compiler.  You need one anyway.  All the 
> resulting packages are target arch.  Your cross compiler can then depend 
> on the native compiler's libgcc rpm for the next iteration.

That works, if we can get the build system issues sorted out. RPM
doesn't currently even handle arch-specific dependencies, let alone 
"I need foo.i386 and I need it in a /usr/i386-linux-gnu chroot" :)

And since you're using the native packages in the sysroot, your
cross-compiler package doesn't even need to bother building the shared


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]