Cross Compiler Unix - Windows

Daniel Jacobowitz drow@false.org
Sat Aug 27 03:05:00 GMT 2005


Most of this really doesn't deserve an answerr, but I'll give you a
couple anyway.  You spend a lot of time blaming people for their
opinions, without any evidence that you've actually understood their
opinions right.  Most of what I've snipped is completely untrue.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:59:58AM +0300, Kai Ruottu wrote:
>  The '--with-sysroot' tries to keep the 'proprietary' layouts even on
> the cross-hosts, where people could always use the "standard install
> layout for GCC", every GCC installed using just the same rules. So the
> situation where all crosscompilers use their own proprietary layouts
> has somehow been seen being better that trying to standardize the GCC
> installation layout.

No.  The point of --with-sysroot is so that you can build a native
compiler for some target, and a cross compiler to that same target, and
have them use the same layout.  The native layout is _not_ something
that we can change at this date, whatever you may like to think about
it.

>  Before trying to move the proprietary layouts into the peaceful?
> land of cross, it could have been better to ask the crosscompiler
> builders how they have solved these "copy the target headers and
> libs from the native system and put them to work with the cross-GCCs
> too" problems. Maybe then there had no reason for the '--with-sysroot'.
> Does it even work as one would expect it to work, solving those '/lib'
> and '/usr/lib' in the 'libc.so' script problems and so on?

Of course it does.  The absolute paths will be handled correctly by ld.

This was done to minimize the pain of building cross compilers to
"hosted" systems.  It seems to have worked, since everyone I've spoken
to who's used it finds it much more natural, and the process has less
undocumented voodoo than the --with-headers/--with-libs setup.

> better way to do just the same thing!" (Was the '--with-sysroot' made
> for people who are not as clever as we cross-GCC people who were
> considered being complete idiots? :-)

As one of the people who implemented this, I take offense at your
comments.  If you couldn't tell.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC



More information about the Gcc-help mailing list