Re: ARM toolchain recommendation
+++ Allen Curtis [04-06-02 08:54 -0700]:
> On Jun 2, 2004, at 8:00 AM, Wookey wrote:
> >+++ Allen Curtis [04-06-02 07:35 -0700]:
> >>I am starting a new project using the TI OMAP 5910 processor. This
> >>seemed like a good opportunity to use some new technology so I went to
> >>the Emdebian site. I was very surprised to see that the toolchain was
> >>very old. (2.95.2 if I remember correctly) Is there a reason for this?
> >Yes - no-one has got round to producing a nice replacement.
> If I get versions that looks promising, would someone be willing to
> test it?
I should think so. Do make sure you build a debian-style toolchain - i.e.
not one that installs to /usr/local/ It would be best to build from the
latest debian binutils and gcc packages so that we can keep in sync with the
Debian mainstream. If you wrote a script that would automagically produce
x86->arm, powerpc and m68k C and C++ cross-compilers and binutils, that
would be great.
The process is all nicely documented in the gcc/docs/cross-compile file.
This is the sort of thing that machine offered to set up would be handy for.
Any progress on that?
> >>What are your toolchain recommendations for ARM?
> >I'm still using the emdebian one for most things as it's a fine
> >vintage but
> >for some things (e.g arm xscale targets) it's too old and i've been
> >either the handhelds.org toolchain or the scratchbox toolchain.
> I will take a look at these.
there are also a couple of good ones at http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
> >Are you sure you can't build 2.6 kernels with gcc 2.95? I was under the
> >impression that 2.95.4 was actually better for kernel building (on
> >even now. maybe that's only 2.4?
> Actually I think I could build 2.6 kernels with 2.95.3. (I could not
> build GCC 2.95.3 using the 2.5 kernel headers) I could not build the
> 2.6 kernel with GCC 3.2. It refused saying that there are too many
> known bugs. GCC 3.3 is getting a lot of good press but I can not build
> this until I update the GCC version on my workstation.
Yes 3.2 was not good (on arm at least). 3.3 is much better and even mostly
Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679
work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/ play: http://www.chaos.org.uk/~wookey/