Re: can build toolchain in two steps, but not one

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
>
> > Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > > credit where credit is due, it was a private e-mail from michael
> > > that pointed me at the appropriate architecture makefile as the
> > > source for some unwanted compiler options when trying to run the
> > > *native* compiler.
> >
> > How about posting a patch to fix the kernel sources, now that you've
> > found the problem?
>
>
> but, again, is this really the direction you want to take? 

Think about it... are toolchains the only thing I build?

> it could
> conceivably require one patch per architecture, whereas the sanitized
> headers seem like such a simpler and safer solution.  and patching the
> kernel source might not be a one-time thing as some future feature
> might screw up the build process yet again.  why take the chance?

Because I want to build the kernel, perhaps?

I'm proposing that you really fix the kernel Makefile,
for real, and submit the patch, for real.
- Dan

--
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer?  See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html

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