From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 11:15:52 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Two or three stages gcc build? In-Reply-To: References: <20130705233831.12030038@skate> <9C6FE6D2-322A-41E7-8B82-C623B5C1F754@gmail.com> <20130906145821.4ce0ab13@skate> Message-ID: <20130907111552.0d646140@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Khem Raj, On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 09:59:34 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > In the mean time, I've experimented a bit and actually implemented it. > > The patch hasn't been merged yet in Buildroot, but it has been posted: > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2013-September/077344.html. > > > > Don't hesitate to have a look and tell me what you think. > > OK. The patch looks ok to me. one thing > > Do you need to support multiple toolchains ? and how far do you want to go back ? I would much rather not > have THREE_STAGE_BUILD options at all. We do need to support building gcc 4.2.x, because that's the only version for which thee AVR32 architecture is supported. I'm hoping that in a year or two we can drop AVR32 support (the architecture has been deprecated by Atmel), and therefore simplify a few things, but for now, I believe we need to be able to support older gcc versions than 4.7/4.8. Thanks for having a look at the patch! Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com