Cross toolchain support for SPUs on Cell / ppc64
Jochen Roth
jroth at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Sat Jun 21 14:21:40 UTC 2008
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, or when
> target-specific bugs force your cross-binutils to use a different
> version of binutils than of the native 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. And of course add some patches for target
specific bugs if needed. I think this is also the way avr-binutils does.
The systems binutils package has to be compiled with at least the option
--enable-target=spu or even better with --enable-target=all
What is the right directory where SPU include files should go?
I just looked into avr-libc and they put everything in /usr/avr/ ..
So would it be correct to put spu related files in /usr/spu/ and
subdirectories?
>> For spu-newlib we'd have to create a separate package as we'd have for
>> spu-gdb.
> This is one option, but it raises problems with bootstrapping GCC.
>
> The alternative is building newlib+gcc one-tree-style (building newlib
> and gcc at the same time). It's what I do for my cross-toolchains.
Yes, right, that is another thing we have to care about.
Btw, is there any Fedora cross-toolchain guide I should be aware of?
Thanks!
--
Jochen
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list