From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19763 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2003 16:08:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rda-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: rda-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19727 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2003 16:08:17 -0000 Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:08:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Peter Barada Cc: peter@baradas.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, rda@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Realure to build uberbaum tree for m68k-elf Message-ID: <20030203160857.GA11365@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Peter Barada , peter@baradas.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, rda@sources.redhat.com References: <20030202221347.C605D98964@baradas.org> <20030202223823.GA13076@redhat.com> <200302031604.h13G4HU26161@hyper.wm.sps.mot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200302031604.h13G4HU26161@hyper.wm.sps.mot.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-q1/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 11:04:17AM -0500, Peter Barada wrote: > >>>I haven't been ablke to build the uberbaum tree configured with >>>--target=m68k-elf for the past few days. Previous I had problems with >>>a missiung tk8.4 directory, and it was suggested by Christopher Faylor >>>that I remove it. After removing the tix directory and configuring >>>again, the build fails trying to build the rda part of GDB: >>> >>>/home/peter/work/cvs-gnu/uberbaum/rda/lib/gdbsocket.c: In function `gdbsocket_startup': >>>/home/peter/work/cvs-gnu/uberbaum/rda/lib/gdbsocket.c:191: error: storage size of `sockaddr' isn't known >> >>Well, you can remove rda, too, unless you are going to be needing it, >>which is unlikely. > >I thought someone would like to know that it doesn't build >'out-of-the-box'. If I read rda/lib/gdbsocket.c correctly, I can't >see how it can build for a embedded target that uses newlib since >newlib doesn't supply a sockaddr_in definition. > >Would it be wrong to suggest that rda should not attempt to build >itself for any target that requires newlib? No, I don't think it's wrong. There have been some discussions in the rda mailing list about this. I've cc'ed this message there. cgf