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]

Re: binutils-uClibc followup patch


Carl Miller wrote:
Is there any reason not to use the obvious "simple, no patching needed"
tuple: i386-uclibc-linux-gnu ?

Which brings up the question: how about I start using the tuple i386-glibc-linux-gnu for crosstool's glibc toolchains, just to be uniform? That second field is supposed to be for vendor name, but in the free software world, the C library name seems like a good thing to stick there...


I was under the impression that the -gnu fourth field specified C library.
Thus, i386-glibc-linux-gnu would actually be calling out glibc twice, and
i386-uclibc-linux-gnu would actually be calling out two different C
libraries.  That's why I chose to replace the -gnu suffix.

I suspect that the place to go for answers here is config.sub. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-10/msg01295.html added *-linux-uclibc* as a legal value. So Carl's right, it seems. - Dan


------ 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]