Re: relocating the compiler and associated tools

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring dot com>]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Daniel Kegel wrote:

> Jim Tison wrote:
> > Dan, I've gotta respectfully disagree with you ... later versions of gcc
> > don't seem to be compiling in any less path information
>
> I don't disagree!  I heard, though, that they will do
> a runtime fixup on the paths.  I ought to dig up the patch that
> added it (around gcc-2.96 or so?) ... but might not have time to...

  for what it's worth, i just ran a simple test.  my SH3 toolchain
built, so i added its *original* "bin" directory to my path, and
compiled your basic "hi" program, both ways:

  $ sh3-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc hi.c
  $ sh3-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc --static hi.c

i haven't had a chance to test run the executables yet, but in both
cases, i got executables as output that "file" told me were SH
binaries.  so at least that part worked (the static binary being,
naturally, massively larger than the dynamic).

  i then copied all of .../gcc-3.4.1-glibc-2.3.3/ to /usr/local/sh3,
and reset my PATH to instead include /usr/local/sh3/bin.  ran same
test compiles, got the same output.  i realize this doesn't constitute
a rigorous test, but it seems promising.  (once i read more, i'll
probably realize that i didn't need to copy *everything* from that
results directory over to /usr/local/sh3 but better safe than sorry).

  anyway, was there something else i should try while i'm at it?

rday

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com