>OK. Can I safely upgrade my native binutils for i686 too or can the two
>versions (2.9.1.x.x and 2.9.5.x.x) coexist?
Either. It should be safe to use 2.9.5 for x86 but the two can also coexist.
>I did not try it, I just looked for duplicate, different(*) files and found
>them: /usr/lib/lib{bfd,opcodes,iberty}*. I understand that when you compile
>a new binutils, it will read the current supported targets. But what if I
>distribute it in binaire form?
If those are static libraries (.a) then you can safely not distribute them -
nothing uses them at run time. The only problem you will have is if you
configure with "--enable-shared" in which case you will end up with clashing
versions of libbfd.so and friends; the solution is just to not do that.
>| No. The cross-compiler will look in $PREFIX/arm-linux/include and this is
>| where you should put the headers.
>|
>Just to be sure: that's the right place for the glibc header files too? That
>makes sense to me, because then you can use an other version of the
>c-library for the arm cross-builds.
Yes.
>BTW. Where is libio for?
It provides I/O stream functions. I think the iostream component of libstdc++
rests on it. The stdio library in C also uses libio but libc contains its own
copy.
p.
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
++ Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for ++
++ kernel-related discussions. ++
