From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Dooks Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:53:55 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] ARM EABI builds In-Reply-To: <46844AEC.7020007@gmail.com> References: <20070628103443.GT31791@trinity.fluff.org> <019801c7b9d6$ba07ed10$ebba820a@atmel.com> <46844AEC.7020007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070629135355.GE3856@trinity.fluff.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 04:57:32PM -0700, Tom wrote: > Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > >>The problem with buildroot is that it gives you a choice of ARM cpus. > >>If you select ARM920T, then you have an expectation of being able > >>to run the binaries produced on an ARM920T, which currently if EABI > >>is also selected is impossible. > >> > > > >So should we not just make EABI depend on !ARM920T > > 1) EABI will work fine on ARM920T (and other ARMv4) targets 2) Currently, until other patches, a number of the available gcc choices do not currently build a compiler, let alone make it to the application stage. 3) The proposed fix in 1406 attempts to ensure that down the road we don't fall into this trap again. > I would say no, because this combination works for buildroot. (However, > if you _only_ select ARM920T and EABI and don't take care of the CPU > options, it will fail.) -- Ben Q: What's a light-year? A: One-third less calories than a regular year.