This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See crosstool-NG 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] |
"Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> writes: > Esben, All, > > On Tuesday 26 February 2013 Esben Haabendal wrote: >> "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> writes: >> > On Thursday 17 January 2013 Wang Baisheng wrote: > [--SNIP--] >> >> If above is true, the question is transfered to : why need a >> >> shared-capable core gcc to build NPTL ? >> > >> > This is a very complex question, for which I do not have the absolute >> > answer. >> > >> > There are two ways to approach this problem: the academic point of view, >> > and the pragmatic point of view. >> > >> > First, the pragmatic view point: everybody does it this way: crosstool-NG >> > openembedded, buildroot, all major distros... So it is a known way of >> > having an NPTL toolchain, with no need to have to solve new issues no one >> > will really be interested to investigate, as a working solution already >> > exists. >> > >> > That's probably not a satisfiable answer for some, but as it does get the >> > job done, most of us are just happy with that. >> > >> > Now, from the academic stand point. NPTL is partly implemented by the >> > kernel, by the C library, and by the compiler. How these play together >> > is a bit obscur to me. >> >> So if everybody else does something slightly wrong, we will do the same >> ;-) > > Yes. This is the pragmatic approach. > > However, if any one comes up with a way to build NPTL, that does involve > only two gcc steps, and is *sane*, What is the definition of sane here? > then I'm not against integrating it. It should however be proven to > be sound beyond any doubt, though. Which is AFAIR, same kind of argumentation that caused my work in this direction to be blocked in OE. "Prove boyond any doubt" is a really _HARD_ task here, and in this case, for most people not really feasible. FWIW, I believe that OE has made some changes in this direction recently, but I haven't looked into exactly what was changed (as I am happily using ct-NG in OE-lite). /Esben -- 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] |