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

Re: Cross-compilers.

On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 17:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 16:30 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 11:07 -0400, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > > David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > How about just building binutils, then the compiler, then some libraries?
> > > 
> > > That would be great if it's possible.  How is this going to work with 
> > > only the headers supplied in binutils and gcc? 
> > 
> > I believe it ought to go something like
> > 
> >  binutils < gcc < glibc < libgcc
Forgot to mention:
- libgcc is part of GCC.
- The dependency GCC and glibc (and the kernel-headers) is circular.

Splitting out libgcc from GCC IMO is an attempt to break this circular
dependency from the wrong end.

> > We might want to put libgcc into a separate package for the
> > cross-toolchain, unless we can _fake_ the presence of glibc.
> As mentioned a dozen of times before: Simply repackage the glibc binary
> rpms into a sys-rooted environment (for those GCC's supporting it -
> Older versions don't).

Using the binary glibc, breaks this dependencies into the same linear,
incremental dependency chain as being used for native compilation and
re-uses the identical target library binaries as being used natively.


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