On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 19:14 +0800, Guo Hongruan wrote: > 在 Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:00:23 +0800，Phil Blundell <[email protected]> 写道: > > > On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 11:22 +0800, Guo Hongruan wrote: > >> * the previous default version of binutils (2.19.51) in micro.conf > >> cause the default version of glibc failed to build > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Guo Hongruan <[email protected]> > >> > >> -PREFERRED_BINUTILS = "2.19.51" > >> +PREFERRED_BINUTILS = "2.18" > > > > No, this is not acceptable. Moving binutils forwards to 2.20{.1} would > > probably be OK, but going back to 2.18 is no good since that version > > does not work correctly with Thumb code. > > the toolchain setting in micro.conf is incompatible, which caused this > problem. For the preferred version of glibc is 2.6.1 which is set in > conf/distro/include/sane-toolchain.inc,
Isn't micro using eglibc? I wouldn't have expected that you should be seeing glibc built at all for that DISTRO. > I think it is better to change the > binutils preferred version which is set in conf/distro/micro.conf. As I said before, binutils 2.18 is not acceptable in general because this version cannot do Thumb code. Glibc 2.6.1 is pretty old and, if it is incompatible with newer toolchains, I would suggest updating to a newer version of glibc (e.g. 2.10) rather than trying to wind the toolchain backwards. As a last resort we could make the binutils version be architecture-specific, and select 2.18 for i386, but I really don't think this ought to be necessary. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
