[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <263E3217-740D-44F2-BC2A-BDCA4AFB38B8@sholland.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:38:31 +0000
From: Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: libgcc errors
On October 9, 2014 7:13:42 AM CDT, Andrew Bradford <andrew@...dfordembedded.com> wrote:
>Could you please provide more info on why you think the embedded Cross
>LFS way [1] is more complicated than is needed? How could it be made
>more simple? I'm happy to take suggestions for improvement.
>
>[1]:http://cross-lfs.org/view/clfs-embedded/arm/
>
>For the most part the toolchain building portion of embedded CLFS
>follows Gregor's musl-cross.
Because he doesn't need a cross compiler, only library isolation. Even the LFS method is more work than absolutely necessary. You could compile musl with your host GCC, then compile binutils and GCC with musl-gcc, and be done with it. I recommend the LFS way because 1) it works with C++ and 2) some people claim musl-gcc makes unreliable GCC builds.
Cross LFS makes sense when you're planning to use musl on another machine/architecture, but not (in my opinion) for making a native toolchain. I have no problems with CLFS; I just think it's the wrong tool for the job.
>Thanks,
>Andrew
--
Regards,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.net>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
