On 3/1/12 3:48 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Could you please explain (again) the advantages of your proposal over > the current process.
The biggest advantages are that we don't have to maintain a patch that reverts upstream changes to make our build system work (the pass2 startfiles fix patch) and that we are more closely following what upstream has provided to build a clean cross compiler. And yes, pass 1 is indeed a cross compiler, and it cross compiles the temporary libc. It just happens to match our host architecture so we can fake it as a native compiler when we build pass 2 of binutils and gcc. The current method does work, but for all intents and purposes, it works unintentionally since we mangle the source. Before pass 2, in the current method gcc doesn't even work without manually specifying -B and to me that's broken. There may seem to be more adjustments in the proposed version, but it's really just resetting hard coded paths in configurations to work with the /tools prefix - think of it as moving the adjusting toolchain phase from after glibc to before gcc pass1 is compiled. And because of the pre-adjusting there's even less chance to bring in something from the host system. The limits.h file is an example. The first pass of GCC doesn't install a full-featured limits.h file because it can't find one in the include paths we've specified. And that's it. It's cleaner, more direct, and more closely tracks what upstream has provided. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
