Build is verified!
spyro at f2s.com
Thu Mar 20 19:34:13 PST 2003
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:37:47 +0000 (UTC)
Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
> > In other words, we are basically cross compiling to produce ch5.
> > (cross compilers, by nature, being unbootstrapped creatures).
> No, not cross compiling... cross linking.
> Host arch and OS are the same
well, functionally equivalent to a cross compile where host == target,
> cross compiling is a completely different kettle of fish...
> > does pure LFS actually cross compile? if not, why? cross compiling
> > has advantages such as not needing (potentially) uname hacks to work
> > on old hosts...
> Why, because there is so much manual intervention required, hacking
> configures to produce the right options as the aclocal tests cannot
> run due to the inability to test certain stuff,
> the inability to run the freshly compiled app during the course of the
> build therefore we would be using the host system binaries up until
> the point of chroot...
Irrelevant, since that would be stuff like sed/awk. the toolchain used
and libs etc. would all be the cross compiled ones...
> Probably more but thats all I can come up with
> off the top of my head...
You half succeeded in convincing me of your point. ;-) (one day, I
intend to cross compile LFS from ARM to X86, just to see what breaks ;-)
> A full cross compile IMHO is only required if you are coming from
> another OS or attempting to build an image for a different arch, both
> not for the faint of heart.
> If thats the way you want to go you'd need to do a static
> cross-compile with much hacking, install a kernel then run the Pure
> LFS build hoping all of your tools built correctly (no make checks
> runnable during a cross-build... )
well the ch5 gcc had better build OK in either scenario - if it doesnt,
theres not a lot you can do, as you may well only find out when you
compare the stage 2/3 ones ;)
(Oh, btw - I remember one system I failed to get GCC to bootstrap from
(although I didnt persevere) - 2.0.39 ARM linux with gss 2.7.something
WONT bootstrap gcc 2.95.3) I forget who asked me for an example, but
there one is :)
> That'd be far too convoluted for the book...
> Good questions mate, hope this clarifies things a little...
Thanks. I appreciate the time you took to answer my questions. Perhaps I
generated some food for thought too, eh? :)
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev