From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2312 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2008 00:54:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 2284 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jan 2008 00:54:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (HELO rv-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.198.189) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:53:49 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g11so1560948rvb.56 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:53:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.152.8 with SMTP id e8mr3941384rvo.19.1201568027083; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:53:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.44.16 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:53:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <359fcc390801281653v756f8f91i2e394b36452788e8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:54:00 -0000 From: "James Tebneff" To: "Michael Witten" Subject: Re: Building a cross-compiler Cc: "Wenton L. Davis" , "John Carter" , gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <7EC02895-AD23-4469-A5C6-507C086D3B45@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <479E4EEA.9050101@ieee.org> <479E68C9.1020705@ieee.org> <7EC02895-AD23-4469-A5C6-507C086D3B45@mit.edu> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2 On Jan 29, 2008 11:06 AM, Michael Witten wrote: > > On 28 Jan 2008, at 6:44 PM, Wenton L. Davis wrote: > > > John Carter wrote: > >> > >> It's a _very_ dark art.... > > No kidding!!!! > > I disagree wholeheartedly. > > Creating a cross compiler _should_ be the easiest > thing in the world, but the gcc is so backasswards > that it can be troublesome. > > >> Some hints:... > >> > >> There is a nasty tangly dependency between binutils, libc and the > >> compiler. > >> > >> Last time I did it, I found I had to have the binutils --prefix > >> directory > >> the same --prefix as the compiler. > > This is definitely the case; gcc is really just an > interface to a bunch of different tools, so it needs > to know where to find those tools. > > It would be nice if there were a configure directive > to specify the location of binutils tools for greater > flexibility. For now, just make --prefix the same for > both. > > In any case, you're supposed to be able to put the > binutils source subdirectories (gprof, opcodes, > bintutils, ...) inside the top level of the gcc source > code so that one configure invocation handles both; both > source trees are actually 2 separate views of a larger > tree. > Yes check out the documentation for a Combined build http://gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html Regards JT