Jeff Garzik wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: >> While I agree that I'd like a better approach (specifically, I want any Sparse >> build to support any target arch), I don't yet have a solution for that, and >> this patch does at least seem like an improvement over the current hardcoded >> values. > > That's my desire as well: My ideal sparse backend should be able to > compile x86, x86-64, ppc64, ia64, arm, etc. with just a change of > command line switches. > > The gcc approach is just bloody awful. I agree that the GCC approach to cross-compilation could use significant improvement. In particular, I'd like to just specify a set of architectures, or "all of them", at compile time, and have GCC support all of those architectures in the same GCC binary. Combined with GCC's existing "sysroot" approach to multiple architecture support, this would make cross-compilation much easier. However, in the meantime, GCC doesn't seem to have any such thing. How do we want to implement it in Sparse? I don't think we have enough information on the GCC command line. I suppose we could allow specifying an architecture explicitly; for cgcc, we could also allow specifying the compiler name for cross-compilation and then deriving the architecture name from the compiler name if not explicitly specified. I'd like to see much of cgcc disappear; it should do nothing except invoke GCC and Sparse, and Sparse should handle the architecture issues that cgcc currently handles. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
