Khem, Paul, all, On Friday 18 May 2007 02:14, Khem Raj wrote: > Paul Brook wrote: > > This is definitely wrong. The output of the compiler depends on the > > configuration of and options passed to the compiler. > > For example, on x86-64 machines asm/unistd.h defines different sets of > > syscalls depending whether it's in 32-bit or 64-bit mode. > > If you don't have a target compiler available you simply can't generate > > this > > header.
So, as of today's svn, building a cross-toolchain can be considered broken. > I think one way is to have a minimal cross compiler generated before > making uclibc headers > thats a change in the build order and would need no changes in the > makefiles. [Hmm, I'd rather change the Makefile than build a compiler!] So, to build a cross-toolchain with uClibc, we need, in order: - kernel headers - binutils - bare-metal xgcc - uClibc headers - 'bootstrap' xgcc - uClibc - complete/final xgcc I'll be poking at how buildroot handles this. Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +0/33 662376056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ^ | | --==< °_° >==-- °------------.-------: X AGAINST | /e\ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | (*_*) | / \ HTML MAIL | """ conspiracy. | °------------------------------°-------°------------------°--------------------° _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc