Re: binutils-2.16.1

On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 01:29:38AM +0200, Groepaz wrote:
> On Saturday 16 July 2005 00:57, Arthur Othieno wrote:
> 
> > And so is buildroot[1]. The uClibc toolchain is simply pre-configured
> > to target ppc. Apart from that, nothing fancy.
> >
> > AFAIK, no one has slapped the "official" moniker over it. Allow me to
> > quote myself[2]:
> >
> >   "That said, the recommended compiler, for both kernel and userspace,
> >    is the uClibc one: http://uclibc.org/toolchains.html"
> 
> ...which is probably one of the reasons of little interest in gc-linux among 
> the ppl in the gcdev channel. i've personally dropped it myself coz when i 
> complained a while back (even on this list) that gc-linux cant be compiled 
> with a "clean" gcc, ppl would keep telling me to use that uclibc toolchain 
> instead of fixing whatever is borked in the makefiles. (it were trivial 
> things, that much i remember)
 
Nothing is broken in the Makefiles. The only thing that was "broken" was the
top-level Makefile futzing directly with $(CROSS_COMPILE) and thus making it
toolchain-biased, so to speak. This has since been deleted.

ISTR your problem was __powerpc__ not being defined. I pointed out that
this was due to a misconfigured compiler, and to which you acknowledged[1].

In any case, if your version of gcc fails this test, then reconfiguring
gcc with --target=powerpc-foo-linux should do the trick[2].

  hubb@mars:~$ powerpc-linux-gcc -dumpversion
  3.3.3
  hubb@mars:~$ echo foo | powerpc-linux-gcc -dM -E - | grep powerpc
  #define __powerpc__ 1
  #define __powerpc 1
  #define powerpc 1
  hubb@mars:~$

> > > i personally never understood why the gc-linux ppl made their own stuff
> > > in that area. maybe some ppl should visit the gcdev irc channel on efnet
> > > more often :=P
> >
> > Ok, this sounds a little too religious. Besides, we are talking about
> > _binutils_ here, and not about (a collective) toolchain $foo vs.
> > toolchain $bar. That alone is another debate of it's own, and one
> > in which I have no interest participating.
> 
> imho its not very smart to use seperate distributions of binutils und gcc, 
> update them seperatly and all that, its just asking for trouble. and there 
> are reasons for so many ppl to use devkitpro - it just works damn well.
> 
> > I use what works for me, and I'm pretty sure everyone else uses what
> > works for _them_. It's only natural.
> 
> ofcourse, no problem with that. the point when its starting to get bad is when 
> someone relies on certain specific things that are only present in a specific 
> setup - like the gclinux makefiles do.
 
Again, none of the Makefiles in the kernel tree are toolchain-specific.
Feel free to point out any specific cases.


[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.game-cube.devel/235
[2] http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/2004-February/013183.html


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click