From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 11:58:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 11:57:54 -0400 Received: from t2.redhat.com ([199.183.24.243]:46578 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 11:57:49 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: To: Alan Cox Cc: bodnar42@bodnar42.dhs.org (Me), jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu (Jan Harkes), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] include/linux/coda.h Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:57:24 +0100 Message-ID: <26524.990547044@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk said: > Why is your cross compiler outputting different symbols to a linux > native compiler ? > If __linux__ is not defined by the cross compiler, then the cross > compiler is broken. A cross compiler has the same environment as the > native compiler for the target. The only stuff that should break (well > should as in might) is tools native built > Or am I misunderstanding the report ? Why use a cross compiler? With the obvious exception of UML, the Linux kernel is not a Linux executable, so why should it need to be compiled with a compiler which targets such? The kernel compiles quite happily with compilers which aren't targetted specifically at Linux -- the CODA compatibility cruft being the one exception. I often just comment out the CODA includes from to get round the same problem. -- dwmw2