Hi Paul, > I'm not complaining, mind you, just reporting the facts: > gcc 4.0 will not build binutils 2.14 but does build 2.16.1 fine > gcc 4.0 will not build gcc 3.3 (have not investigated further) > > This is going to be a bit of a support issue moving forward, so it would > be a good thing (tm) to add support for alternate versions of the host > compiler in your makefiles (HOST compiler, not TARGET compiler), > -or- > upgrade our build environment to not include code that doesn't break in > gcc 4.0 (either by switching the target compiler to something newer, or > by just fixing line 653 in read-rtl.c of gcc 3.3.3. Right now, when > buildtool bootstraps itself, it assumes the host compiler is just "gcc" > -- it would be nice if we could specify something trivial to buildtool > to run gcc-3.4 instead. Point taken - tweaking the makefiles to allow for specifying a different host compiler than "gcc" sounds like a good idea (I was assuming that simply setting CC=whatever would actually do the trick, but I've never tried it). Regarding your suggestion about changing the buildenv to build with gcc 4.x - if gcc 4.0 will not build gcc 3.3.2, we're out of luck anyway (regarding a quick and simple solution) - as Eric pointed out, there are several sources that break when one tries to compile them with anything later than gcc 3.3.3 (I tried 3.3.4 and failed, I don't even want to imagine how they behave with gcc 4.0.x) - busybox and bash are the ones I stumbled over, when trying to upgrade (see revisions 1.12 and 1.13 of src/bering-uclibc/apps/buildenv/buildtool.mk for "proof" :-)). That's why we still use gcc 3.3.3, despite the fact that gcc 3.3.6/3.4.4/4.0.2 are out.
Yes, it would be possible to upgrade all of those problematic sources too, but if we do that, I guess we might as well skip Bering uClibc 2.3 and go right ahead to Bering uClibc 2.4 (since we'd have to upgrade several packages in the process, which would basically require starting from scratch with the beta cycle). I'm not saying it's impossible - it just seems like the timing is not quite ideal for making a change like that right now. But as I said, tweaking the makefiles for buildenv to allow specifying a different compiler than "gcc" could be the way to go. Just my two cents (I'll most likely be using gcc-3.4.3 for the next several years as my "HOST compiler", so I might not be terribly qualified to work on that anyway). Martin ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/
