From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernhard Fischer Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:23:45 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Building ARM with Soft-float In-Reply-To: <1191013693.5322.252.camel@elrond.atmel.sweden> References: <1190969812.5322.96.camel@elrond.atmel.sweden> <1190996888.5322.198.camel@elrond.atmel.sweden> <20070928170109.GO20951@aon.at> <1191013693.5322.252.camel@elrond.atmel.sweden> Message-ID: <20070928212345.GB20951@aon.at> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:08:13PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >fre 2007-09-28 klockan 19:01 +0200 skrev Bernhard Fischer: >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 06:28:08PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >> >fre 2007-09-28 klockan 10:56 +0200 skrev Ulf Samuelsson: >> >> Tried the Integrator-926ejs default. >> >> => This works: >> >> >> > >> >Beeing trying the ARM integrator softfloat the whole day. >> >oabi, instead of eabi, generates a new problem >> >which was not present a week ago. >> >The C compiler seems to be built with EABI... >> >BR2_GNU_TARGET_SUFFIX="uclibc-linux-gnueabi" >You mean the gcc look at its invocation name to determine >what it should do. No notion of the invocation name there. http://gcc.gnu.org/install/ >Seems stupid to me. Well, it isn't :P If you disagree, http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html >What happens if you just call it arm-linux-gcc or even gcc? You can call it however you like. The drivers follow a somewhat stricter layout but are hidden from users anyway. > >BTW; there are a lot of warning messages about >calling the tools I don't understand this. >-linux-uclibc-. > >Should they not be called -uclibc-linux-? I don't think so. Look at your staging_dir/usr/bin/*