Hi Stefan,
> Well, finally my actual goal is to build GCC differently: There is no need to
> patch in CROSS_C_INCLUDE_PATH etc. The include paths to standard header
> files must not be provided through
> environment variables at all. This is the cause of all the troubles people
> have with
Hello Guix!
Now that the last (!) core-updates branch has been merged, Guix/Hurd on
real iron has become a reality. It's still experimental and certainly
not for daily use, but exciting for sure! Read all about it in this new
post:
https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2024/hurd-on-thinkpad/
Greeti
Hi Rutherther!
I think it's good idea to move away from C_INCLUDE_PATH,
LIBRARY_PATH for the toolchain libraries (glibc, stdlibc++, ...), but
what about other libraries? Those, as far as I can tell,
have to be provided by a search path, as they cannot be compiled inside
the toolchain. Or am I mi
Hi Ekaitz!
Very interesting work. I'll read it with more detail tomorrow but at the moment
it feels very similar to what we did for RISC-V
Is there any obvious difference in the beginning of the chain that I'm missing?
I use tcc-boot0 only to build the latest TCC with the latest musl, with mu
Hi,
Christian Miller writes:
> Hello,
>
> this is how I configured my system:
>
> (modify-services %desktop-services
> (delete gdm-service-type)
> (mingetty-service-type config =>
> (mingetty-configuration
> (inherit config)
> (auto-login "cm")
> ;; TODO: Work around to
On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 12:46:21AM +0100, Ekaitz Zarraga wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2024-11-24 00:20, Stefan wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I got a step further with the different way to build GCC. The problem
> > not using the proper multilib variant for embedded systems is solved now
> > and I updated to GCC
Hi Efraim!
In terms of what I've seen so far from your repo and reading your email
I would suggest just trying to bump make from 3.80 to 3.82, it Just
Worked™ for me, even on riscv64.
Yes, you are right, I should drop the use of gnu-make-mesboot0. This would
allow me to drop four substitutio
On 2024-11-24 13:02, Stefan wrote:
Hi Ekaitz!
Very interesting work. I'll read it with more detail tomorrow but at
the moment it feels very similar to what we did for RISC-V
Is there any obvious difference in the beginning of the chain that I'm
missing?
I use tcc-boot0 only to build the late
