> > > * By using a cross-compiler, by definition you use a compiler that is > > > not the same as the default compiler for your architecture. As such, > > > your architecture is no longer self-hosting. This may introduce bugs > > > when people do try to build software for your architecture natively > > > and find that there are slight and subtle incompatibilities. > > > > > > > I have never seen nor heared about such a case. IME this is extremely > > rare (if it happens at all). > > Do you want to take the chance of finding out the hard way after having > built 10G (or more) worth of software? > I don't see why the risk would be higher compared to native compilation. > This is not a case of embedded software where you cross-compile > something that ends up on a flash medium the size of which is counted in > megabytes; this is not a case of software which is being checked and Some embedded software is fairly extensive and runs from HD. > tested immediately after compilation and before deployment. This is a Most packages are not tested automatically at all. > whole distribution. Subtle bugs in the compiler may go unnoticed for a > fair while if you don't have machines that run that software 24/7. If Only a very tiny fraction of the software in debian runs 24/7 on debian machines. > you replace build daemons by cross-compiling machines, you lose machines > that _do_ run the software at its bleeding edge 24/7, and thus lose > quite some testing. It can already take weeks as it is to detect and Most cross compiled software also runs 24/7. I have yet to see problems produced by cross compiling the code. > track down subtle bugs if they creep up in the toolchain; are you > willing to make it worse by delaying the time of detection like that? > They wouldn't necessarily show up any faster in native builds. > I'm not saying this problem is going to hit us very often. I do say this > is going to hit us at _some_ point in the future; maybe next year, maybe > in five years, maybe later; in maintaining autobuilder machines over the > past four years, I've seen enough weird and unlikely problems become > reality to assume murphy's law holds _quite_ some merit here. The > important thing to remember is that this is a risk that is real, and > that should be considered _before_ we blindly switch our build daemons > to cross-compiling machines. > I don't think the risk is real considering the amount of cross compiled software already running in the world. Cheers, Peter (p2).
Description: Digital signature