On Thursday, Jun 29, 2006, Volker Grabsch writes: >On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 12:24:49PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> > For example, suppose you support a new OS, such as the w32 platform. >> > Currently, your only choice is "w32-i386", which means that you must >> > use an i486-mingw32msvc Compiler. However, for a w32 system a i486 >> > compile doesn't make a lot of sense. Since those systems (except very >> > old Windows versions) need at least a Pentium, it is reasonable to >> > compile such a distribution at least for i586, not i486. >> >> The only sensible choice would be w32, w32-i486 or w32-i586. Nothing >> dictates the use of -i386 in a new architecture name. > >If that was true, you would shorten die "linux-i386" Debian architecture >with "linux" instead of "i386". In fact, it's the "linux-" or "gnu-" >which can be left, not the "i386".
Actually, the 'linux-' part isn't really optional either... because 'linux' really means 'glibc'. You typically need a different toolchain to link against, say, uclibc. I'll say again here more briefly what I sent to the originator of this thread privately: There are machines with different arch's that are compatible (eg. i[356]86), and there are machines with the same arch that aren't compatible (eg. built vs uclibc or with -msoftfloat or chips like ARM that have big/little endian 'switches') So: it's a mess, and more power to ya if you want to try and figure it out. --pj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
