This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Porting gcc without porting Binutils?

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: htio2 <wenbin dot leong at gmail dot com>, gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:00:50 -0600
Subject: Re: Porting gcc without porting Binutils?
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <1444317733135-1192659 dot post at n5 dot nabble dot com> <CAK5mtewFF4BFzA+AZq8_Nxh_frj5vxSEJ6+WH1ZFXo9J-Sdnzw at mail dot gmail dot com> <1444320041182-1192676 dot post at n5 dot nabble dot com> <5616945B dot 7090002 at redhat dot com> <1444323032132-1192698 dot post at n5 dot nabble dot com>

On 10/08/2015 10:50 AM, htio2 wrote:

I could just use back some standard Binutils like arm's Binutils right ?

s/back/hack/
?

Yes, you could hack an existing binutils port. Depending on thecomplexity of your target that may or may not be the best approach.



Jeff

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Porting gcc without porting Binutils?
  - From: htio2

References:
- Porting gcc without porting Binutils?
  - From: htio2
- Re: Porting gcc without porting Binutils?
  - From: Victor Rodriguez
- Re: Porting gcc without porting Binutils?
  - From: htio2
- Re: Porting gcc without porting Binutils?
  - From: Jeff Law
- Re: Porting gcc without porting Binutils?
  - From: htio2

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]