On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Paul D. DeRocco <pdero...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Shouldn't gcc-cross be described as a "cross" > package rather than a "native", and shouldn't gcc-crosssdk be described as a > "native" binary that runs on the target? Or am I still fundamentally > misinterpreting these things?
Your understanding is quite good, actually. But I think you're mixing up your contexts :-) If you were at GCC or LLVM conference talking to a bunch of compiler geeks about compilers, they would use the term "native" to refer to a compiler which produces executables for the same machine on which the compile was taking place. As opposed to a cross-compiler which produces executables meant to run on some other architecture. If you were on the Yocto/OE mailing lists talking to people about "native" packages or output, you would be differentiating between packages which are meant to run on the build machine rather than on the (embedded) target. So in the Yocto world, any package meant to run on the build machine is a "native" package. Even if that package is a cross-compiling compiler (i.e. a non-native compiler). :-D _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto