2011/7/13 Nathan Whitehorn :
> The one I meant was the third one. Linux and FreeBSD happen, though not
> entirely by chance, to use almost exactly the same ABI on most platforms
> (but not all!). Assuming, and requiring, interchangeability of ABIs here
> thus seems like a poor choice. Once you've d
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:59:05 +0200
Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/7/12 Alexander Kabaev :
> > The fact that Linux compiler with manually undefined and re-defined
> > platform macros can compile is a coincidence and is not guaranteed
> > to work and certainly is not a goal of FreeBSD project so this
On 07/12/11 17:33, Robert Millan wrote:
2011/7/12 Nathan Whitehorn:
On 07/12/11 16:06, Robert Millan wrote:
Why would one need to build a cross-compiler in order to compile
userland-agnostic code for the same CPU architecture? This would be
like requiring a cross-compiler in order to build thi
2011/7/12 Nathan Whitehorn :
> On 07/12/11 16:06, Robert Millan wrote:
>> Why would one need to build a cross-compiler in order to compile
>> userland-agnostic code for the same CPU architecture? This would be
>> like requiring a cross-compiler in order to build things like GRUB or
>> SeaBIOS.
>
>
On 07/12/11 16:06, Robert Millan wrote:
2011/7/12 Alexander Kabaev:
Whatever happened to using a proper cross-tool to do the job?
Why would one need to build a cross-compiler in order to compile
userland-agnostic code for the same CPU architecture? This would be
like requiring a cross-compiler
On 7/12/11, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/7/12 Oliver Pinter :
>> +.if ${OPSYS} != "FreeBSD"
>>
>> and what's the status example on NetBSD?
>
> I didn't think of it. There are some instances of __NetBSD__ and also
> __OpenBSD__ in the kernel tree, and the same problem can be fixed for
> these two s
2011/7/12 Alexander Kabaev :
> The fact that Linux compiler with manually undefined and re-defined
> platform macros can compile is a coincidence and is not guaranteed to
> work and certainly is not a goal of FreeBSD project so this can be
> broken at any moment.
There must be some missunderstandi
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:06:12 +0200
Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/7/12 Alexander Kabaev :
> > Whatever happened to using a proper cross-tool to do the job?
>
> Why would one need to build a cross-compiler in order to compile
> userland-agnostic code for the same CPU architecture? This would be
> l
2011/7/12 Alexander Kabaev :
> Whatever happened to using a proper cross-tool to do the job?
Why would one need to build a cross-compiler in order to compile
userland-agnostic code for the same CPU architecture? This would be
like requiring a cross-compiler in order to build things like GRUB or
S
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:00:56 +0200
Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/7/12 Oliver Pinter :
> > +.if ${OPSYS} != "FreeBSD"
> >
> > and what's the status example on NetBSD?
>
> I didn't think of it. There are some instances of __NetBSD__ and also
> __OpenBSD__ in the kernel tree, and the same problem ca
2011/7/12 Oliver Pinter :
> +.if ${OPSYS} != "FreeBSD"
>
> and what's the status example on NetBSD?
I didn't think of it. There are some instances of __NetBSD__ and also
__OpenBSD__ in the kernel tree, and the same problem can be fixed for
these two systems with minimal effort.
Here's a new vers
When building kernel code on a non-FreeBSD system, kernel source still
expects pre-processor macros to be those of a FreeBSD system. If
__linux__ is defined, build will break. If __FreeBSD__ isn't defined,
build will break too.
This small patch "fakes" the pre-processor macros of FreeBSD so that
12 matches
Mail list logo
