Ready for gcc-4 & cleaning up binutils source delete or not.

Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au
Sun Apr 17 18:35:55 PDT 2005






TheOldFellow wrote:
>Jeremy Utley wrote:
>> TheOldFellow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, my intention was to show some alternatives and provoke a
>dicussion.
>
>> If you like examining scripts for ideas, try taking a look at
>these:
>>
>> svn co svn://be-linux.org/cross-lfs/cross-lfs/trunk cross-lfs
>
>Jeremy,
>
>Thanks, I've DLed that.
>
>Where is the discussion of these developments taking place, I've
>lost
>sight of them?
>
>Has anyone tried a gcc-4 build using Ryan's method yet?
>

Nope, though I might hack it in tonight... not much work

Only real change there is the specs handling.

Personally I have been waiting for gcc-4/glibc head to stabilise
before I bothered with it, most effort has gone into overhauling the
build method and making it rock-solid.

Along the way it solves pretty much all the deficiencies in plfs-style
builds, without sacrificing multilib support or resorting to stuffing
with the glibc build (the one package I refuse to hack).

I suppose though we'll need 2 host compilers, we'll need a 3.4 for
the kernel builds etc
( no biggie, will install them with
--enable-version specific-runtime-libs and --program-suffix set so
folks can switch between using CC="gcc -V 4.0" or CC="gcc -V 3.4.3" )

>Maybe I'll have a go myself later today - I have some other stuff on
>punch-list first though.
>
>I might even try the build from the gcc-4 host :-D
>
>R.

Cool, let us know how it goes...
patches more than welcome :-)

 Regards
[R]




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list