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] |
Sam Brightman wrote: > Nathan Kidd wrote: >> >> If you have no sparc box at all, then in my opinion, the only sane >> approach is to go to ebay, pick up an older sparc box with solaris 9 for >> a few hundred bucks and then you can a) get your native headers/libs and >> b) actually be able to test! > > Are we/you then not back with the original problem of depending on the > old Sparc box in several years time? I don't think so. From a building perspective, you need the box for *initial* compiler setup, but once that's done you've got all the benefits I mentioned earlier -- you don't need the box for *building* any more. Your QA process is free to do whatever (with a local SPARC box or otherwise). If the box dies nobody really cares (e.g. QA only needs a generic SPARC box, not a particular machine with specific disk space, mounts, compiler versions, etc.). > As a final attempt - is there any reason why a statically compiled > version of our app built with crosstools targetting Sparc shouldn't > work? All the code is built targetting Sparc, and surely and glibc etc. > functionality is in the binary? If you're making a native Solaris 9 binary then glibc is not part of the picture; you should link with Solaris 9's libc. I'm not an expert on how the symbols are resolved, but if your goal is to produce a binary that will "just work" on any Solaris 9+ then I don't think there's any way you can get around needing the native libs. Happy building, -Nathan -- 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] |