This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
bgat@open-widgets.com wrote: > > Guys: > > Just to let you know, I haven't forgotten about my new responsibility > as the CrossGCC FAQ maintainer. > > I've started working on it, but quite frankly, I'm not happy with the > direction it's heading in. The basic outline at the moment is > unchanged from its current form, which causes problems because certain > types of information are specific to targets, while others are > specific to hosts, while still others are specific to tools. > > It's always been like that, of course, but as the number of > gcc-supported targets with individual hacks (i.e. arm-linux) has > increased, discussing them coherently and concisely in the current > format generates lots of verbage. > > As for new directions, I'm currently leaning towards a faq-o-matic > inspired approach, where there is no hiearchy at all, each section is > sort of standalone. This means that there will be a section on > building host=cygwin/target=arm-linux, and a different section for > building host=pc-linux/target=arm-linux. Or something like that. > > I'm liking this strategy, because it lends itself to links like "how > do I build an arm-linux crosscompiler that runs under Cygwin?" and > thus makes the document very browsable. It's a big rewrite, though, > so it'll take a few days before I can show anything of value. > > Heck, is there any interest in running the "real" faq-o-matic for > this? I'd be happy to host it on my box... > > Thoughts? Just saw your post from 2 weeks ago. Since we are building cross-GCC for a number of targets, we want to build each target in exactly the same way, not with a different recipe for each target. For the most part, we are able to do this. I have built GCC using Cygwin in the past, but not recently, so I'm not current on the differences with build on pc-linux. One problem I see with the matrix approach (one entry for each host/target combination) is that the descriptions diverge. Differences between targets get described as if they are SOP, rather than undesirable, and after a while a bug description begins to read as if it is a requirement. If you want me to read/comment on a draft of the FAQ, let me know. -- Michael Eager eager@mvista.com 408-328-8426 MontaVista Software, Inc. 1237 E. Arques Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94085 ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |