Fedora and Cross Compiling
David Woodhouse
dwmw2 at infradead.org
Wed Jun 13 22:42:15 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 15:59 -0600, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Do we _actually_ need to build parts of glibc? Could we not get away
> > with a fake DSO which just provides the few symbols libgcc uses?
>
> You can do that, but it's a bad idea. Since glibc is a moving target,
> libgcc's configurey might not turn on something that is valid because it
> can't detect the support for it. That's why we have the two stage
> process to begin with.
You're speaking of the things which libgcc requires from glibc. That
really is a _minimal_ set of functions. Is there _anything_ it actually
tries to automatically detect -- _anything_ which might be turned off in
libgcc because autocrap thinks glibc won't support it?
> > Or do we even need to build the dynamic libgcc _with_ the compiler at
> > all?
>
> Need? Depends on what you're willing to put into it...
Que?
> > Actually it happens for me every time I build a cross-compiler.
> > But perhaps it doesn't _need_ to; you're right.
>
> What if you're not building from scratch- instead building iteratively?
> What if it's in Fedora so you aren't building one in the first place?
Heh, the latter would be nice :)
> Cross compile the native compiler. You need one anyway. All the
> resulting packages are target arch. Your cross compiler can then depend
> on the native compiler's libgcc rpm for the next iteration.
That works, if we can get the build system issues sorted out. RPM
doesn't currently even handle arch-specific dependencies, let alone
"I need foo.i386 and I need it in a /usr/i386-linux-gnu chroot" :)
And since you're using the native packages in the sysroot, your
cross-compiler package doesn't even need to bother building the shared
libraries.
--
dwmw2
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list