[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

答复: Fwd: Status of gcc-4.0


发件人: Matthias Klose [mailto:doko@cs.tu-berlin.de] 
发送时间: 2007年3月26日 18:09
收件人: Wookey
抄送: Embedded Debian
主题: Re: Fwd: Status of gcc-4.0

Wookey writes:
> [continuing this discussion on-list]
> On 2007-03-25 09:30 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Hector Oron writes:
> > > Hello Matthias,
> > > 
> > >   We are doing an effort to maintain a cross toolchain in sync with
> > > debian one at www.emdebian.org.
> > 
> > cool, maybe we should have met at Fosdem, but I was all the time in
> > the java sessions.
> > 
> > >   I remember to read somewhere that gcc-4.0 was going to pass away for
> > > most of the Debian arches.
> > >   Could you, please, tell us where to read or what are the plans for
> > > gcc-4.0 toolchain?
> > 
> > well, 4.0 will be part of etch, but as you say, just used on hppa. I'm
> > unsure if you do want to base your work on 4.0.  4.1.2 from
> > experimental might be a better idea.  If you want to target lenny,
> > maybe go ahead with 4.2.
> We do our best to support all the versions of gcc that are available in
> each debian suite. But this does depend on cross-build tools building and
> actually producing valid code. 
> > When disabling binary packages for the native builds, I may break the
> > cross targets unintentionally. It's somewhat important that you
> > regularily check gcc & binutils versions from experimental for such
> > things (at the moment the build of libgcc1 and libstdc++6 from the 4.1
> > in experimental is disabled, didn't check for the cross build).
> OK. We are currently only building unstable tools and letting them
> percolate down into testing and stable. There is no reason why we
> shouldn't include experimental in this process, so we will try and do
> so.

this is just for times, when experimental is ahead of unstable.

> > btw, please see that gcc-4.1-source, gcc-4.2-source and
> > binutils-source are now in the archive, so it should be easy to build
> > cross packages just by build-depending on these packages. 
> Hmm. Building from the toolchain-source package was deprecated a
> couple of years back, for good reasons, IMHO, so we build from the
> standard source packages (e.g gcc-4.1). I'm not sure what would be
> gained by build-dep-ing on the above binary-namespace source packages?
> Apologies if I am missing something obvious here.

the toolchain-source package had a *copy* of all the required
sources. in the current gcc-4.1-source you'll find exactly the source
from the gcc-4.1 source package, plus any patches that are applied.
something what might be needed are rebuilds of the cross packages when
the subminor compiler version changes.

> > Let me know,
> > what else is needed as "source package" (newlib, glibc?)
> Well currently only binutils and gcc are built from source. Libraries
> are just downloaded and convered for cross-building with dpkg-cross.
> But for new arches glibc needs to be built from source (and maybe
> uclibc one day). 
> But this refers back to the above question of how these binary
> source-packages help. Currently the cross-builds can not be done by the
> normal build system because that doesn't know about the jiggery-pokery
> needed for cross-building (see
> for the sordid details).

again, I don't see these as problems, as long as you don't have your
own *copy* of the sources.


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-embedded-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact

Reply to: