On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Reading the patch in that link, recent cross compilers from _where_?
Buildroot? Cross-tools? Gentoo embedded? Cross Linux From Scratch?
My Firmware Linux project?
You assume they all use the same name, yet your patch changes them
from one default name to another default name, presumably due to a gcc
version change becoming increasingly political about the
GNU/Linux/Dammit thing...
Compilers build from the only remaining distribution that supports (sort
of) m68k: Debian.
Maybe. I use an old Cross LFS build, as well as Debian (does Debian
officially support m68k?), and there also exists an unofficial Gentoo
port.
If you cross compile for m68k and don't specify a toolchain, you get a
default one: the one the m68k developers use.
On some other architectures, you always have to specify the toolchain.
What's wrong with providing a default?
Nothing, except that uniformity across platforms follows the principal of
least suprise. That generally makes life easier downstream.
I personally have created and used m68k cross toolchains as "m68k-linux",
"m68k-linux-gnu" and "m68k-unknown-linux-gnu". AFAIK it's quite arbitrary.
This wasn't an issue before we came to depend on cross compilers. Since we
tend to need them more as compilation becomes more expensive, IMHO we
should follow the practice of the embedded architectures.
-f
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
