Cross-compilers.

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 17:44 +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) writes:
> 
> >> This will create a huge amount of variations:
> >> 
> >> * soft-float/hard-float
> >> * little/big-endianess
> >> * cpu optimized libs (e.g. ARM XScale, EP9301, Thumb/non-thumb); multi-lib
> >>   support would be probably too much overkill for embedded platforms
> > The contrary is true. Multilibs initially have been invented for
> > embedded targets and have a long history there, predating using them on
> > "non-embedded" OSes.
> 
> I do not see sense for multilib here because binary packages must be
> built per architecture (e.g. soft/hard-float are ABI incompatible,
> kernel assumes a certain endianess, optimized programs should be used
> on embedded platforms due to the limited resources).
=> multilib'ed kernels/OS runtime libs.

> Enabling the multilib bits adds just unneeded complexity (both in
> packaging, bootstrapping and performance+size aspects).
Yes, they impact bootstrapping + size and toolchain size, but the rest
isn't. 

>From a user's perspective, multilibs are very convenient. For example
they enable you to switch the HW without having to recompile the
toolchain/OS. All you need to recompile is your application with
different flags.

Ralf