From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Gatliff Subject: Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:17:29 -0500 Message-ID: <48515A29.6070800@billgatliff.com> References: <1209577322.25560.402.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <200806102235.09598.rob@landley.net> <484F66F8.4020409@snapgear.com> <200806111941.51221.rob@landley.net> <48513F5A.6010008@am.sony.com> <1213285831.26255.152.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20080612160845.GB9327@linux-sh.org> <48514E9A.3080901@billgatliff.com> <1213288655.26255.168.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1213288655.26255.168.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-embedded David Woodhouse wrote: > Yeah, I was building Red Hat Linux packages for sh3 many years ago, > using tricks like that. But there was always _something_ else going > wrong, however much you hacked around it. And a lot of it would only > turn up at runtime, not build time. I would never consider shipping a > product with a large number of userspace packages cross-compiled. I take it on a case-by-case basis. But yea, validation is definitely a pain. Especially with all the silent failures (i.e. getting endianness wrong) that the configure script creates for you. > For minimal file systems with a select handful of tools which can be > tested exhaustively, it's not so bad. But for any 'full-featured' > userspace, I think cross-compilation is completely insane. We both agree that it'll *drive* you insane, at least. And I'm 90% with you on the rest. :) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com