Re: Cross-Compilation settings

[Mario Luca Bernardi <mrlc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ven, 2004-02-06 at 13:15, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> /Fix your gcc. More precisely: Change gcc in such a way that it can link.
> This normally means to supply a startup file (crt.o).
>
> There are cases where this is difficult (bootstrapping gcc, libc or an
> OS)./
I can't do this since the cross-compiler arm-epoc-pe-gcc is provided in 
binary form and doesn't have , as already sayed ,  the crt.o startup 
file. It must be used only for generate .o files.

/ /

> />  There is a way to specify that the compiler in case 3) should
> > never used to generate executables?
> Do you expect executable to fall out of the sky? :)/
Of course no , the problem is that in cases 1 and 2 i have a standard 
configuration so i can let automake use the compiler for linking(that is 
the default beahviour). In case 3 i have to use several programs that 
build other files (.def1,.bas,.exp,.exe and finally .app ) to link all 
the objects into an executable. This means i've to switch among two 
totally different configuration. From autoconf i can see if i'm 
cross-compiling and what kind of host i'm configuring for(e.g. arm-linux 
or arm-epoc-pe). Now i can't figure out how to force automake to 
generate makefiles that take in account standard building behaviour in 
case 1 and 2 and the more complex build style in case 3.

> /There exist several ways to work around these problems:
> * extend gcc to do what you what it to do.
> * Pass appropriate flags (CC="gcc-<target>
> --startfile=/somewhere/start.o --nostdinc -L/somewhere/ --spec myspec
> ..." or similar)
> * Use a wrapper script.
> * If using automake, override automake's linker related make-variables.
> What might be applicable to you depends on your particular
> problem/situation./
From what you say and the discussion above i think that the last way
(override automake's linker related variables) should be appropriate.
Do you think that overriding the linker it's possible to use a small
toolchain (some .o files --> xyz.def1--->xyz.exp-->xyz.exe--->xyz.app )
for linking of an executable instead of a single linker command ?

> />  Moreover there is a way to have the
> > above behaviour for building sources in the case 3) and a standard
> > gcc executable generation on case 1) and 2) ?
>
> You don't really want to do that ;)/
Why do you think that ? In the end it should right the thing i'm asking 
for! :)

Thanks for help.

Best regards,
Mario L. Bernardi