From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Edwards Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:10:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Buildroot] external toolchain and sysroot References: <1272730299.20100325182803@ya.ru> <93399903.20100325201240@ya.ru> <44830928.20100325201616@ya.ru> <20100325233452.3794166b@surf> <20100326202442.7ef0e1ae@surf> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 2010-03-26, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:04:33 +0000 (UTC) > Grant Edwards wrote: > >> > * We pass --sysroot $(STAGING_DIR) to every gcc/ld invocation, so that >> > gcc/ld find the libraries and header files correctly. >> >> Perhaps that's what's supposed to happen, but there appear to be a lot >> of packages where it doesn't happen (at least for some of us). > > As I said in my other mail in this thread, yes, there are many packages > that are broken with regard to --sysroot. Sorry, I guess I got confused by the contradiction. Stating that --sysroot is passed to every gcc/ld invocation meant to me that you believed there were no packages that are broken with regard to --sysroot. > Packages that use the Makefile.autotools.in infrastructure should all > work, but for all the other packages, they should be fixed one by > one. OK, that's all I was trying to establish: that some/many packages are broken when used with external toolchains and not every gcc/ld invocation is being passed --sysroot. What I'm still puzzled about out is why builds fail for some external toolchains and not others. I'm pretty sure that I wasn't the first person to attempt to build 2010.02 busybox with an external toolchain, yet nobody else seems to have had the link failure due to the missing --sysroot. OTOH, --sysroot was clearly not present in the link flags. I can't find any gcc/binutils config options that should cause a difference like that. -- Grant