Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Our suggestion would be to build spu-binutils from the same source as
the system gcc for ppc is build.
Theoretically, this would be one possibility, however, practice tells
this doesn't work, because there always will be situations when you will
want to patch/apply hacks to your cross-binutils, or when
target-specific bugs force your cross-binutils to use a different
version of binutils than of the native binutils.
Yes, we need a separate spu-binutils package for the assembly anyway.
And then we can build the spu-binutils from the same source tree as the
systems binutils package. And of course add some patches for target
specific bugs if needed. I think this is also the way avr-binutils does.
The systems binutils package has to be compiled with at least the option
--enable-target=spu or even better with --enable-target=all
What is the right directory where SPU include files should go?
I just looked into avr-libc and they put everything in /usr/avr/ ..
So would it be correct to put spu related files in /usr/spu/ and
subdirectories?
For spu-newlib we'd have to create a separate package as we'd have for
spu-gdb.
This is one option, but it raises problems with bootstrapping GCC.
The alternative is building newlib+gcc one-tree-style (building newlib
and gcc at the same time). It's what I do for my cross-toolchains.
Yes, right, that is another thing we have to care about.
Btw, is there any Fedora cross-toolchain guide I should be aware of?
Thanks!
--
Jochen
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
