>But I can't test them as not-debian boxes are not allowed in the house
>:-) So can someone with a suitable machine download either:
>http://www.emdebian.org/files/tools/tgz/gcc4.1-glibc2.3.6-binutils2.17->i38
6-arm-cross-toolchain.tgz
OK I've downloaded this onto a Fedora Core 4 system (a little out of date
but functional). This does not appear to contain arm-linux[c++ gcc cpp
gccbug] ie all the useful stuff.
I've unwrapped it where I unwrap different tool chains which only required
some minor dir name fiddling. However the structure of the directory tree is
somewhat different (particularly the lack of include at the "top" and the
way that different bits of the include tree are structured). This may of
course simply reflect the changing world of gcc 4.1 or it may reflect a
particular Debian view of the world, I'm not sure. It may of course be
irrelevant but since I don't have the compilers I can't really tell.
{I will now try the RPMs I assume that the .tgz was a tree snapshot after
the .rpm s were unwrapped, except of course they were .deb s :-) )
>Note the cross prefix is now arm-linux-gnu- not just arm-linux- (to
>distinguish from uclibc and gnueabi toolchains)
This is a royal pain, as this string is embedded in countless application
scripts and makefiles all over..., well all over everything. I think I will
be using some symbolic links without the -gnu- bit.
On brief reflection this addition seems dumb. If you are building in a
different way for the same machine then you want to parameterise the build
(i.e. an eabi build and a non eabi build ) changing the executable name
isn't the right way to define different build types. I don't want to have to
change my application makefile moving from one build type to another, I want
to parameterise it, or even point to where to find the right executables but
I don't want them changing names. {The arm-linux prefix is of course valid
and useful as I may have many different cross build environments.}
I may of course have missed the point...
David
(text/plain)