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] |
Steven,sometimes gcc/binutils can assume v5t as default architecture when using EABI. So when you select strongarm it may be that somehow
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:16:05AM +0100, Steven Newbury wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 08:42:24AM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:You probably would be better off with gcc-4.1.0/glibc-2.4. The EABI
I've tried your patch on a debian unstable machine with gcc-4.0.3,
2.16.1cvs20060117-1 and glibc-2.3.6-7 and get this error from the
glibc startfiles stage:
merge caused a lot of flux through 4.0.x and has only stablised in
4.1.x.
The problem is that for our PTXdist users (PTXdist uses crosstool
internally) normal people, using normal distributions, should be able to
build a cross toolchain, which means that we are more or less fixed to
what the distributions have these days. And that's what even Debian
Unstable currently has.
But if it doesn't work, it doesn't work :-)
Update: this seems to happen when you change the -mcpu thing from theIt is quite possible. Are you using an actual StrongARM?
arm926 to strongarm. Does that mean that for certain ARM sub archs there
is something missing in binutils?
No, we mainly use PXA255, PXA270, h720x, i.MX, netX and NetSilicon CPUs.
The thing is that, for a generic ARM softfloat toolchain, it should be
generic. And setting the cpu to strongarm gave us toolchains which
worked on all these architectures.
Robert
-- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |