This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org 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] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
sorry to revive an old thread but ... On Thursday 03 November 2005 05:35 am, Greg Schafer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:49:05AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > i was just perusing the cross-LFS docs and noticed that *their* > > recipe for building a toolchain didn't involve the installation of > > glibc headers between the binutils and bootstrap gcc steps. > > In summary, it *is* possible to build cross-toolchains on some arch's > without the Glibc headers step... and it's quite trivial to patch all the other arches (except for ia64) to not need libc or kernel headers > trust me.. I've done the hard > yards with Google on this topic and the evidence confirms that building > Glibc based cross-toolchains without the Glibc headers step is just plain > wrong. the stuff ive found have always talked about mismatch exception handling between libgcc_s and the libc ... so what if we do: - binutils - bootstrap C (no libc headers) - kernel headers - libc - 'normal' C (and optional C++/whatever addons) will the final toolchain be OK ? -mike ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |