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 Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 12:46:01AM -0700, Carl Miller wrote: > > > If you want to freshen up the gcc/binutils patches for newer > > > versions than I worked with, you might see if the uClibc project > > > has the appropriate patches available over CVSWeb. Start here: > > > > > > http://www.uclibc.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/buildroot/sources/ > > > > > > and dig into <tool>/<version>/Attic There's some good stuff > > > there. > > > > In the Attic? That's a strange place for placing patches. Why are they > > being wiped off the buildroot? > > Dunno that they are. I'm not sure exactly how buildroot uses those > sources/<tool>/<version> directory. It could be that "Attic" is > considered a place to store things that are theoretically needed > once, functioning similarly to the patches directory of crosstool. Attic is a folder reserved by CVS for files wiped from the workdir. E.g. files found in the 'Attic' are deleted files kept only for version control purposes. > > I already searched for something corresponding to the separate build > > vs src dir hierarchy (like the Makefile relocate patch), but this > > seems not to have been addressed within uClibc. > > No, it has not, and as far as I can tell, they do not intend to address > it in the foreseeable future. Building outside of the source directory > is not important to them. My makefiles-relocate patch was rejected for > two reasons, being for an old version (easy enough to fix once I can > find the time), and requiring PERL. Some of the uClibc team consider > it important to be able to rebuild the library on a minimal uClibc- > hosted system. PERL is currently very difficult to compile for a > minimal uClibc-hosted system (primarily because PERL is currently dang > near impossible to cross-compile), so they do not consider PERL as > acceptable to put on the "required tools" list. Hm, would a VPATH approach perhaps work? The Makefiles do look simple enough. I'm going to test this on 0.9.23. > I asked if I could rewrite the relocate script such that it didn't use > PERL, and used only acceptable "required tools" (and made the > corresponding Makefiles patch apply cleanly to current CVS), might the > patch then be accepted. I never got an answer to that question. So > my take is, let's get the Makefiles portion of the patch up to date, > and have crosstool use that with the current relocate (I've never heard > a crosstool user complain about needing PERL). Any thought of > rewriting relocate to make it amenable to inclusion in uClibc can come, > time and will permitting, after full uClibc support is in crosstool, > and well thrashed out. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |