Re: condensed version of question about toolchain build

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring dot com>]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dan Kegel wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >   i'm doing another build for sh3eb and i think i've sort of isolated
> > a problem (at least for this).
> >
> >   what *works* is that i can build the toolchain with san. headers and
> > then configure a kernel source tree and use that toolchain to compile
> > the kernel as a whole separate operation.  (for this to work, i have
> > to set PATH appropriately, and set
> > CROSS_COMPILE=sh3eb-unknown-linux-gnu).  in short, it works if i do it
> > in two steps.
>
> Hey, glad to hear it.  You should mention which version of the kernel,
> crosstool, .dat file, etc.

hey, even a blind squirrel finds the occaional acorn.  details to
follow after i'm *sure* i didn't screw anything up.

> >   if i try to do it all in one step, the compile of the kernel fails
> > as if it's using the wrong compiler.  i'm redoing the build and saving
> > the output for inspection but does the above make any sense?  (the
> > errors i get from the kernel build are as if the compiler doesn't
> > understand what are obviously SH3-specific compile options.)
>
> By "in one step", what do you mean exactly?
> Telling crosstool to use the non-sanitized headers, perhaps?

sorry, that was badly worded so let me turn this into a much simpler
question.  is there any drawback to building a toolchain using
sanitized headers as opposed to a full kernel source tree?  i ask
since it appears that it's the kernel configuration step that's
causing the problem, and that's obviously bypassed if you're just
using headers.

does that make sense?

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