On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 09:27 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
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.
Well, people had been referring to uclinux,
avr/avr-libc, mingw32/msys,
cygwin/newlib, rtems/newlib, bare metal and ... linux/glibc targets.
.. so I am probably not alone with my perception.
But, at least I provided you an opportunity to show how much smarter
you are than the rest of us -- you're welcome.
It's just that
cross-compilers is a subject I work on for almost a
decade and am feel embarrassed when people start talking about "mips"
compilers when they actually mean "mips-linux", "mipsel-linux" or
"mipseb-linux" targets.
Ralf