On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 11 October 2007 11:26:07 am Finn Thain wrote:
> My toolchains override the default prefix to just the target, resulting
> in "m68k-gcc". (It's shorter, and when you're creating a dozen toolchains
> having them all say -linux- in the middle of every command name gets a bit
> silly...)
>
> When it started complaining about "m68k-linux-gnu-gcc" (which is _not_ what my
> cross compiler is called) I spent half an hour tracking down where it was
> getting that name from and what exactly was going on. (Was my build script
> supplying the wrong name? Did something set an environment variable it
> shouldn't have? Did the gcc build suddenly reveal another strange buried
> corner case that made it revert to a default against explicit instructions
> _again_?)
>
> When I found the surprising behavior that cost me time and effort to diagnose,
> I submitted a patch so it wouldn't confuse future developers the first time
> _they_ try to build m68k. (Yes, I think there might be such. Call me
> crazy.) I've seen "didn't specify any cross compiler" failures before, on
> arm and x86-64 and mips and sparc and so on. I've seen it in the linux
> kernel, in busybox, in uClibc, and in various gnu packages
> with ./configureitis. This is the first time I've seen a package confidently
> decide for itself to use a compiler name that isn't in the $PATH, and
> especially the first time I've seen Linux do it. It cost me time to
> disagnose because it looks like it's getting a CROSS_COMPILE setting from its
> environment somehow, and the logical thing to do is look at that environment
> (and the build scripts driving it, and the temp files) to see where such a
> thing might be leaking in from. The fact it might be hallucinating its own
> value was not my first guess, because nothing else I've encountered does that
> in this context.
>
> > This wasn't an issue before we came to depend on cross compilers. Since we
> > tend to need them more as compilation becomes more expensive, IMHO we
> > should follow the practice of the embedded architectures.
>
> That topic's a can of worms, but I point out that you always needed a cross
> compiler to bootstrap a new platform. :)
>
> If you're going to support cross compiling at all, you might as well do it
> more or less consistently for all targets.
If your cross-compiler is called differently than the default on in
arch/*/Makefile, what's the problem with calling?
make ARCH=myarch CROSS_COMPILE=my-cross-compile-prefx-
This has been working for +10 years on all non-ia32 platforms I ever worked on.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
