Guillem Jover writes: > On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 17:59:06 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > if you'd consider accepting something ressembling the attached patch > > > > A pre-existing condition, but in general where the code you're changing > > hardcodes "gnu" that's wrong - arm*-*-linux-uclibceabi is also meant to be > > valid. So if you allow a suffix here, the general form to accept > > consistently would be arm*-*-linux-*eabi*. > > Ok, so something like the attached then (again completely untested)? > > I've changed the ada part to just match on arm% linux% in the same way > the other targets do, as there didn't seem anything GNU EABI specific > in commit 8f0372dd2b828c0a0ee05dee4496a021da9cee40 (r155808).
Incorrect, the ARM Ada support (which I contributed) is emphatically only for linux-gnueabi. Ada on OABI is known to have non-trivial problems (or did last time I bootstrapped it before gcc-4.4), so that combination is unsupported. Besides, OABI is obsolete.