This is the mail archive of the libc-help@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
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 Tuesday, August 30, 2011 16:07:03 Bryan Ischo wrote: > On 08/30/11 13:01, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > oh magic archives, what do you contain ! > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2003-09/msg00100.html > > http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-02/msg00042.html > > Hey thanks for the links. I guess I was on the right track. > > Here is an interesting tidbit: > > Re: Crosscompiling issues with glibc-2.3.4 > > > > From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com> > > To: Jeremy Huddleston <eradicator at gentoo dot org> > > Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com > > Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:09:29 -0800 > > Subject: Re: Crosscompiling issues with glibc-2.3.4 > > Organization: Red Hat, Inc. > > References: <1108245892.30471.68.camel@cid.outersquare.org> > > > > Cross-compiling is not supported. > > That explains alot. Well, it explains why the GNU toolchain is so > crappy in this regard, but it doesn't explain why 'cross-compiling is > not supported'. A google search doesn't reveal any reasons for this, > but there is another instance where the mantra is repeated: > > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10545 if you're looking for sensibleness i'm afraid you've come to the wrong place. this is another reason i suggested you look at crosstool-ng: it picks up all the "unsupported" patches to make cross-compiling work. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |