On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:28:30AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 15:17 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 08:15:18AM -0400, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone else care? Other than the full set of rawhide architectures,
> > > what others would we include? Alpha, SPARC{64,}, ARM, MIPS, SH I assume?
> > > Would anyone volunteer to maintain each of those toolchains? I wouldn't
> > > really feel happy doing it myself, since when it comes to GCC I would
> > > only ever be a package-monkey, and not a proper _maintainer_.
> >
> > I think it would be great that have this, for a wide range of arches.
>
> /me thinks there is a common misunderstanding.
/me thinks what we seem to lack is a common context...
> A cross-toolchain doesn't target an "arch" - it targets a
> "target-system".
>
> Such a "target-system" typically consists of an architecture, a libc and
> and parts of the OS/kernel (sometimes plus further target run-time
> libraries).
Thank you so much for your pedantic nit-picking.
I was, of course, presuming that the audience of this list would
be interested in targeting linux. Please do forgive me for being so
pertinent. I even presumed that stating "MIPS" might cover both "mips"
(or "mipseb") and "mipsel" -- how sloppy of me. All the mipsel-rtems
developers in the audience must be appalled. I won't even mention
glibc, for fear of stirring-up trouble w/ the uclinux crowd...
But, at least I provided you an opportunity to show how much smarter
you are than the rest of us -- you're welcome.
John
--
John W. Linville
linville@xxxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
