On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:46:10PM -0300, Fabricio Chalub wrote:
> > It's almost always better to get a binary distribution if you're just
> > starting out. The Hurd has enough little complexities that adding
> > cross-compiling (not a simple excersize for ANY Platform) is never a good
> > place to start when you have an alternative.
>
> Yes, but I want the experience. And anyway, compiling Hurd natively takes
> something like 6 hours to complete on my Pentium 166 with a burn out
> secondary cache. ;) I won't even try to do the same thing for glibc.
I haven't tried with the filesystem fixes that have shown up in the last
month and a bit, but to date I've never made it through Glibc in a single
pass on a native compiler. Something always loses.6~
> I have a question regarding your mini-howto (which is great btw). Why use
> two compilers? Why not keep egcs only?
Gcc 2.95.2 has a series of useful improvements (gcc.gnu.org for the list)
and also significantly improves cross compiling support. I've had some
good success cross-compiling from a Sparc/Solaris 2.7 to Hurd with 2.95.2
on programs that just didn't seem to want to work with egcs-1.1.2.
Also, Roland has been working on making it possible to compile everything
with gcc-2.95, so the situation should be temporary.
--
"Backwards compatibility is nice, but preserving every undocumented quirk
that nobody sane would use... Sorry, but we really need an addition to
errno.h: EBITEME. Exactly for such cases."
-- Alexander Viro
