From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16182 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2009 09:00:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 16163 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Sep 2009 09:00:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from vmlinux.org (HELO vmlinux.org) (193.41.214.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:00:24 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vmlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B45C1DDA27C; Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:00:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from vmlinux.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (vmlinux.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Z1xTG1aG-3h; Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:00:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.124] (90-224-113-214-no111.tbcn.telia.com [90.224.113.214]) by vmlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B3621DDA27A; Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:00:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4AA37A22.60008@vmlinux.org> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:00:00 -0000 From: Joachim Nilsson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Yann E. MORIN" CC: crossgcc@sourceware.org Subject: Re: crosstool-ng: No CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER set when building a standard CROSS... References: <4AA37053.1000705@vmlinux.org> <200909061052.24457.yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr> In-Reply-To: <200909061052.24457.yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact crossgcc-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: crossgcc-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 Hi Yann! On 09/06/2009 10:52 AM, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > On Sunday 06 September 2009 10:18:27 Joachim Nilsson wrote: >> I would have liked to include a patch, but I cannot make heads or tails >> of this wrapper business, are wrappers even needed for standard cross >> toolchains? If so, then maybe there should be a default *) in the >> CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER case. > Yes they are. Look at docs/overview.txt, it's explained at length Sorry, I actually knew that, can't believe I forgot. And I should've known better and RTFM first. > in there... As for the patch, I'm already on it, don't worry. Heh, it seems I managed to reply with a patch just after you sent yours. It'll be interesting to see your fix. :) Thank you for your, as always, impressively quick replies! Regards /Jocke -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq