Cross toolchain support for SPUs on Cell / ppc64

[A.J.Delaney at brighton.ac.uk]

Jochen,
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 16:21 +0200, Jochen Roth wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> Our suggestion would be to build spu-binutils from the same source as 
> >> the system gcc for ppc is build.
> > Theoretically, this would be one possibility, however, practice tells
> > this doesn't work, because there always will be situations when you will
> > want to patch/apply hacks to your cross-binutils,
> 
> Yes, we need a separate spu-binutils package for the assembly anyway.
> And then we can build the spu-binutils from the same source tree as the 
> systems binutils package.
As you know I have been following an alternative method of delivering an
spu-binutils package; one of creating a package outside the existing
binutils.spec file.

After experimentation I'm now convinced that your approach is correct.
It is necessary to add a spu-binutils package to the binutils.spec, and
similarly an spu-binutils package to the gcc43.spec.  This ensures that
binutils and spu-binutils share the same .po files and that they are
always at some synchronised correct point release etc...  It would be
far too easy to fall out of sync with binutils if the package was a
separate .spec file.

>From my reading of the matter you and I would both like to see
spu-binutils and spu-gcc pushed into Fedora.  I think both of us are in
the dark about how Fedora would like its cross-compilers packaged and
installed.  Is there a policy on this?  Or could someone who has
experience with Fedora compiler packaging suggest how they would like to
see the packaging done.

--
Aidan Delaney