This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org 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 Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > On Wednesday 11 April 2007 15:41, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > 1) there's no dependency for the choice of endianness on the > > selected architecture. does that really make sense? shouldn't > > some architectures *enforce* the selection of endianness? > > Effectively, there's none. I've got some Kconfig fu to test tonight > to try big/little endian selection dependent on the architecture. > Work for tonight... basically, that would be implemented by the "select" Kconfig directive, no? pretty straightforward. > > 2) the location of the kernel headers should be extended to > > include a simple directory, in which i would prefer to place my > > *own* sanitized kernel headers generated by running a "make > > headers_install" in my kernel source tree of choice. > > I see. That could be an option to provide "custom directory > headers", alongside with the other options: "copied", "sanitised" or > "installed". Comments? > > Now, why would you want your own kernel headers? Aren't those from > the pristine kernel enough? I can't see a practical situation where > the headers from a modified kernel would change from those of a > pristine kernel... But I might miss some corner cases... :-) i'm not sure i know what you're asking here. this would just be a way to verify that the sanitized headers produced by the latest kernel source tree are still compatible. and, trust me, those headers produced by running "make headers_install" *do* change on a regular basis. i should know -- i've submitted a few cleanup patches for them. > > 3) regarding the choice of "kernel to use", what is the value of this > > beyond the need to get the sanitized headers? if i provide my own > > headers, is there any reason to need a kernel source tree beyond that? > > if not, then there should be a choice of "none." in fact, if all i > > need are those headers, i would really have no need of that entire > > "kernel" config submenu, would i? > > There are two questions there: > - "kernel to use" is the OS we target in the compiler: Linux, Cygwin (or > others to be added later). > - the kernel headers are those headers needed to build against the OS selected > above. So if you have your own kernel headers (be it Linux or cygwin), then > the answer is: see answer to question 2, above. > > So definitely, you don't want to say "none" to "kernel to use". I agree it's > misnamed, and should be "target kernel". Doing that, commit pending shortly. or, better yet, "target OS". > And you'd still need the kernel sub-menu to say "target kernel" = > "Linux" and "kernel headers" = "custom directory" and "custom > directory" = "/some/place" > > What do you think of that? Is my interpretation correct of your > needs? give me a bit, i'll go over this. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |