Re: Cross-compiling toolchain default location choice

[Daniel Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

ncrfgs wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 08:27:59AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> > Did you also look at http://kegel.com/crosstool?  Ryan is contributing
> > improvements to those, too.  (He wanted NPTL support, and sent in a patch.
> > I'll try to add that in the next release.)
>
>
> Yes, but I faced some problems when trying to use a custom versions 
> combo (I'm using a pretty exotic one at the moment)

Can you tell me more?

> and I needed nptl 

Fair enough, that's not in crosstool yet, but I'll add it in 0.29.

> > I like putting it in /opt/cross/$target/bin/$target-gcc.
>
> Is there a way to make it to coexist with the "regular" toolchain in 
> /usr?

Maybe, but it's a lot safer to put it somewhere else.

> > I think the 2nd gcc can completely replace the 1st.
>
> Do you think is possible to safely mix libgcc_eh.a and libgcc_s.so* 
> from the second gcc with the files from the first one?

I don't know.  I would suggest just using the files
installed by the 2nd one and ignoring all the files from the 1st.

> > But I'm not sure why you care.  The full toolchain - gcc and glibc and 
> > binutils -
> > should be a single package built all at once.  You should not try to
> > mix and match, it's too painful.  Crosstool makes a single RPM for all 
> > components of the toolchain.
>
> I'm trying to do so because CRUX generally tries to make different 
> packages for each single components.

Yeah, but that doesn't make sense for cross-compiler toolchains,
I've come to believe.  You'll be much happier if you make
the whole toolchain a package.

> I'm afraid my questions will sound a little bit stupid but I'm new to
> the cross compiling world.

The learning curve is indeed a bit steep.
- 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