This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com 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] |
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 10:13:32AM -0500, Wolcott, Ken (MED, Compuware) wrote: > results of "diff arm9tdmi.dat arm920.dat": > *************************************************************************************** > ,4c2,4 > < TARGET=arm-9dtmi-linux-gnu > < GCC_EXTRA_CONFIG="--with-cpu=arm9tdmi --enable-cxx-flags=-mcpu=arm9tdmi" > < TARGET_CFLAGS="-O" > --- > > TARGET=arm-920t-linux-gnu > > GCC_EXTRA_CONFIG="--with-cpu=920t --enable-cxx-flags=-mcpu=920t" > > TARGET_CFLAGS="-O" > \ No newline at end of file > *************************************************************************************** > Excerpt of results from running demo.sh: > *************************************************************************************** > ... > Unknown cpu used with --with-cpu=920t > Configure in > /tuba_local/crosstool/crosstool-0.24/build/arm-920t-linux-gnu/gcc-3.2.3-glibc-2.3.2/build-gcc- > core/gcc failed, exiting. > *************************************************************************************** http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3.1/gcc/ARM-Options.html#ARM%20Options -mcpu=name This specifies the name of the target ARM processor. GCC uses this name to determine what kind of instructions it can emit when generating assembly code. Permissible names are: arm2, arm250, arm3, arm6, arm60, arm600, arm610, arm620, arm7, arm7m, arm7d, arm7dm, arm7di, arm7dmi, arm70, arm700, arm700i, arm710, arm710c, arm7100, arm7500, arm7500fe, arm7tdmi, arm8, strongarm, strongarm110, strongarm1100, arm8, arm810, arm9, arm9e, arm920, arm920t, arm940t, arm9tdmi, arm10tdmi, arm1020t, xscale. I think the right option must be: -mcpu=arm920t > second question: I had asked earlier about statically linking gcc. I think > I may have misunderstood the problem I need to solve. I see now a > distinction in concept between a gcc cross compiler toolchain which itself is > statically linked and the target executeables that a gcc cross compiler > toolchain generates which may or may not be statically linked. Talking with > one developer I'm supporting seems to possibly support the need to have both > the toolchain and the targets statically linked. So there's still some > unresolved ambiguity both here (the requirements) and in concept (how does > one do this?) I think we got all options needed: ./configure --enable-static --distable-shared to gcc (for libstdc++, java) glibc (for libc) make LDFLAGS=-static to build a static toolchain eventually it enough to call configure like this: LDFLAGS=-static ./configure --enable-static --distable-shared and then 'make' w/o LDFLAGS, but this might not be enough. hth - Marc -- #!/bin/sh set - `type $0` 'tr "[a-zA-Z]" "[n-za-mN-ZA-M]"';while [ "$2" != "" ];do \ shift;done; echo 'frq -a -rc '`echo "$0"| $1 `'>$UBZR/.`rpub signature|'`\ echo $1|$1`'`;rpub "Jr ner fvtangher bs obet. Erfvfgnapr vf shgvyr!"'|$1|sh ------ 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] |