From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262216AbUBXIxd (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:53:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262218AbUBXIxd (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:53:33 -0500 Received: from MAIL.13thfloor.at ([212.16.62.51]:22915 "EHLO mail.13thfloor.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262216AbUBXIx3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:53:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:53:27 +0100 From: Herbert Poetzl To: Dan Kegel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Judith Lebzelter , cliff white , "Timothy D. Witham" Subject: Re: Kernel Cross Compiling [update] Message-ID: <20040224085327.GA17881@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Mail-Followup-To: Dan Kegel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Judith Lebzelter , cliff white , "Timothy D. Witham" References: <20040222035350.GB31813@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <1077565352.1054.22.camel@leaf.tuliptree.org> <20040223203257.GA9800@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <403AADA9.3040803@kegel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <403AADA9.3040803@kegel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 05:49:29PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote: > Herbert Poetzl wrote: > >my primary goal isn't to get this fixed by the gcc folks, > >I want to have a simple and working solution, which seems > >to be at hand for the toolchains, to cross compile the > >linux kernel for testing purposes. the changes so far are > >not very intrusive IMHO, and I can live with a few patches. > >(btw. currently Dan Kegel has a lot more patches to gcc in > >his toolchain than I do) > > My crosstool package has very, very few patches, and each > patch is carefully documented. damn! It the last thing I wanted to do ... my dearest apologies, Dan, it was not and is not my intention to make your work bad in any way, on the contrary, I really appreciate what you are doing, and I'm glad that something like crosstool exits ... best, Herbert > (You can see them at http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/patches/gcc-3.3.2/ ) > The patches that end in -test.patch simply add testcases to the gcc > regression test. Several of the other patches simply fix testsuite > problems. > The only patches that actually affect gcc are > > http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/patches/gcc-3.3.2/gcc-3.3.2-arm-softfloat.patch > http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/patches/gcc-3.3.2/sh-lib1funcs_sizeAndType.patch > http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/patches/gcc-3.3.2/sh-libgcc-hidden.patch > http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/patches/gcc-3.3.2/sh-pic-set_fpscr-gcc-3.3.2.patch > > I only add a patch after I have verified that it fixes a problem, > and I document what that problem is at the top of the patch; > when possible, the patch starts with a link to gcc's bugzilla for > the problem it fixes. > Fairly often, my patches are simply backports from cvs. > > Debian, by comparison, builds gcc with huge collections of > patches that are not > documented at all. Likewise, Red Hat uses quite a few patches. > I don't want to say the Debian and Red Hat compilers are bad, > but I *do* want to say that crosstool builds compilers that are > extremely close to vanilla, with all departures from vanilla > carefully documented. > > By the way, I agree with Jim Wilson's remark: > > As a gcc > > maintainer, it makes my job harder when people are building the compiler > > different ways, because I may get bug reports that I can't reproduce or > > understand. Also, there is a risk that a kernel-only cross compiler > > will accidentally be used for some other purpose, resulting in a bug > > report that wastes the time of the gcc maintainers. > > That's why I suspect crosstool is a good toolchain for anyone who > wants to report bugs to the gcc folks; it's tightly controlled, > very close to vanilla, and has support for (gasp) running the gcc > and glibc testsuites in a cross-development environment. > > - Dan > > -- > US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first: > http://www.misleader.org/ > http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/ > http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/