On 09/01/2010 02:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:06:37PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> - Fedora's rpm and some components the build-infrastructure have serious
>>> issues related to cross-building.
>>> - A cross compiler alone is not worth it, you need a whole zoo of
>>> further cross-target packages to make it usable.
>> I don't see why.
> You'd need at minimum the infrastructure gcc itself needs, e.g. glibc,
> kernel-headers, mpfr, mpc, libelf, ppl, cloog etc.
You don't need mpfr, mpc, ppl, cloog nor libelf, all those are host
libraries, not target libraries. cc1/cc1plus links against them or dlopens
Yes, you are right.
I was confused by me also building GCC Canadian-X and building for
distros which are not equipped with suffient versions of these
libraries (Try building gcc-4.5.x on CentOS4/CentOS5).
For cross gcc I guess the important question is, do we want
build all the cross compilers (and, is C enough, or do we need C++ too?), or
do we have one cross-gcc-4*.src.rpm that semi-loosely tracks gcc-4*.src.rpm
and builds all the cross compilers (BuildRequires all the cross-binutils and
all cross-glibc/kernel-headers), or each cross would have its own src.rpm?
latter is what I am doing for my cross-toolchain rpms.
I think the last one would be a maitanance nightmare.
necessarily, because different target's/target OS toolchains tend to
diverge (Not all targets suffer from the same bugs), so using separate
*src.rpm and patches for individual toolchains might even be advantageous.
I hope cross Fortran and especially cross Java (or cross
Cross-Fortran/Objc for mainstream distros/targets is often pretty
harmless. Cross-java and Ada are a nightmare.