Re: gcc-cross-initial.inc DEPENDS on libc-initial, but why conditionally on TARGET_ARCH?

[Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Leon Woestenberg schreef:
| Hello Richard,
|
| On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>
wrote:
|> On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 18:56 +0100, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
|>  > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Koen Kooi
|>  > <koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> wrote:
|>  > Indeed, when building powerpc/glibc no libc-initial is involved.
|>  > However, when I switch to ulibc, there is a libc-initial involved, but
|>  > it is not depended on, and a parallel build fails.
|>  >
|>  > Argh, if only I understood the whole complete picture, I could fix it,
|>
|>  I tried asking Phil who is/was one of our glibc gurus and he said "those
|>  two architectures are more classically 'embedded'" than, say, i386 or
|>  powerpc and they might well have more self-hosting runtimes." but he
|>  wasn't sure what the exact reason was.
|>
|>  I've become fuzzy about how the different toolchain bits fit together so
|>  I mapped out the chains below. I've missed out references to
|>
|>  <excellent summary>
|>
|>  So its all a bit complex...
|>
|>  What was the problem you were seeing with glibc-initial?
|>
| LOL, now to add further variables, it was with uclibc :-)
|
| Apparently, uclibc for powerpc does need libc-initial (provided by
| uclibc-initial?) as well.

There's a comment about that in one of the angstrom files about
(possible) needing a uclibc-initial as well. Since uclibc is rather
'dumb' and doesn't do nptl i hasn't been a problem yet, but 0.9.30 is
scheduled to have nptl support for arm, ppc and sh, so we probably need
to revamp uclibc support...


regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFH1eR3MkyGM64RGpERAp2gAJ9QmhzayJvzzxYJceAyCbPzj18fDwCfR4VA
sN1QuQ4KCbkpFYKlyll54WQ=
=evJc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----