question arised while comparing the Yaghmour, Hollabaugh and Kegel ways of creating a cros...

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Hello, all,

I have compared different books and online sources all creating a
cross-compiler (see title). I think all 3's method to generate a
cross-compiler are very much OK. However, trying to understand
everything in all of the 3 methods, makes me wonder...

Where Yaghmour as well as Dan Kegel are patching (/hacking ?) a
cross-compiled libc.so (Kegel also adds libpthread.so and libgcc_s.so
because he's more recent ?), I don't see that happen in Hollabaugh's
way of working. Because Hollabaugh compiles glibc twice, once with a
bootstrap gcc (and a prefix on the host's directory structure), and
later a second time, but then with the 'full-blown' crosscompiled gcc
(and a prefix of /), installing with a custom install_root.

This last (i.e. Hollabaugh's) method seems the egg of Colombus to me,
as it is simple and straightforward, not needing any libhack or other
hack. But I guess there must be a reason why (Yaghmour and) Kegel don't
use it ? Why would that be ?

The only reason I could think of, is that it's too time-consuming
compiling twice the same thing ? Or are there on the contrary maybe
other reasons for opting to hack some .so files ?

Kind regards,

PhB.


Site Timeline