From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Neundorf Subject: Re: cross-compiling alternatives Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:25:42 +0200 Message-ID: <200806161125.42575.neundorf@eit.uni-kl.de> References: <1209577322.25560.402.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <200806161002.25385.neundorf@eit.uni-kl.de> <1213604910.1710.32.camel@tara.firmix.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1213604910.1710.32.camel@tara.firmix.at> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Linux Embedded Maillist On Monday 16 June 2008 10:28:30 Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 10:02 +0200, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > [...] > > > Seriously, why is a wrapper for the compiler/linker required AT ALL if > > the calls to these tools are made from _generated_ files ? > > AFAIU the motivation of libtool to provide OS-independent (and toolchain > independent?) means to compile and link (etc.). > > > The generated files should just contain the appropriate calls for the > > respective commands. > > But these calls are - e.g. for shared libraries - not identical. The Gnu > toolchain is not everything. Yes, that's what I mean. The commands for calling the tools are generated. They should be generated appropriately for the respective toolchains (i.e. the generator must know how to call the different toolchains). No libtool/unitool/other wrappers required. Alex