[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Make m68k cross compile like every other architecture.
    On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Rob Landley wrote:
    > On Thursday 11 October 2007 11:26:07 am Finn Thain wrote:
    > My toolchains override the default prefix to just the target, resulting
    > in "m68k-gcc". (It's shorter, and when you're creating a dozen toolchains
    > having them all say -linux- in the middle of every command name gets a bit
    > silly...)
    > When it started complaining about "m68k-linux-gnu-gcc" (which is _not_ what my
    > cross compiler is called) I spent half an hour tracking down where it was
    > getting that name from and what exactly was going on. (Was my build script
    > supplying the wrong name? Did something set an environment variable it
    > shouldn't have? Did the gcc build suddenly reveal another strange buried
    > corner case that made it revert to a default against explicit instructions
    > _again_?)
    > When I found the surprising behavior that cost me time and effort to diagnose,
    > I submitted a patch so it wouldn't confuse future developers the first time
    > _they_ try to build m68k. (Yes, I think there might be such. Call me
    > crazy.) I've seen "didn't specify any cross compiler" failures before, on
    > arm and x86-64 and mips and sparc and so on. I've seen it in the linux
    > kernel, in busybox, in uClibc, and in various gnu packages
    > with ./configureitis. This is the first time I've seen a package confidently
    > decide for itself to use a compiler name that isn't in the $PATH, and
    > especially the first time I've seen Linux do it. It cost me time to
    > disagnose because it looks like it's getting a CROSS_COMPILE setting from its
    > environment somehow, and the logical thing to do is look at that environment
    > (and the build scripts driving it, and the temp files) to see where such a
    > thing might be leaking in from. The fact it might be hallucinating its own
    > value was not my first guess, because nothing else I've encountered does that
    > in this context.
    > > This wasn't an issue before we came to depend on cross compilers. Since we
    > > tend to need them more as compilation becomes more expensive, IMHO we
    > > should follow the practice of the embedded architectures.
    > That topic's a can of worms, but I point out that you always needed a cross
    > compiler to bootstrap a new platform. :)
    > If you're going to support cross compiling at all, you might as well do it
    > more or less consistently for all targets.

    If your cross-compiler is called differently than the default on in
    arch/*/Makefile, what's the problem with calling?

    make ARCH=myarch CROSS_COMPILE=my-cross-compile-prefx-

    This has been working for +10 years on all non-ia32 platforms I ever worked on.



    Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --

    In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
    when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
    -- Linus Torvalds
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-12 08:55    [W:0.035 / U:22.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site