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 Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Daniel Kegel wrote: > Jim Tison wrote: > > Dan, I've gotta respectfully disagree with you ... later versions of gcc > > don't seem to be compiling in any less path information > > I don't disagree! I heard, though, that they will do > a runtime fixup on the paths. I ought to dig up the patch that > added it (around gcc-2.96 or so?) ... but might not have time to... for what it's worth, i just ran a simple test. my SH3 toolchain built, so i added its *original* "bin" directory to my path, and compiled your basic "hi" program, both ways: $ sh3-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc hi.c $ sh3-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc --static hi.c i haven't had a chance to test run the executables yet, but in both cases, i got executables as output that "file" told me were SH binaries. so at least that part worked (the static binary being, naturally, massively larger than the dynamic). i then copied all of .../gcc-3.4.1-glibc-2.3.3/ to /usr/local/sh3, and reset my PATH to instead include /usr/local/sh3/bin. ran same test compiles, got the same output. i realize this doesn't constitute a rigorous test, but it seems promising. (once i read more, i'll probably realize that i didn't need to copy *everything* from that results directory over to /usr/local/sh3 but better safe than sorry). anyway, was there something else i should try while i'm at it? rday ------ 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] |