OSDev.org https://forum.osdev.org/ |
|
crosstool-ng https://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32087 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | eryjus [ Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | crosstool-ng |
Hi, While I know it has not been explicitly discouraged, is there some reason crosstool-ng is not recommended for building a cross-compiler? The web site is: http://crosstool-ng.github.io/ |
Author: | dchapiesky [ Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: crosstool-ng |
my experience has been that I have specific work flow requirements for the order in which I build the cross compilers and libraries. When I tried to integrate crosstool-ng it just became a pain trying to get my requirements met... literally was easier to just use cmake. others will probably disagree but there you have it. |
Author: | Solar [ Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:22 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: crosstool-ng |
eryjus wrote: While I know it has not been explicitly discouraged, is there some reason crosstool-ng is not recommended for building a cross-compiler? Well, the instructions in the OSDev Wiki predate crosstool-ng (v0.0.1 released Apr 10, 2007) by a comfortable margin, and are known to work. |
Author: | Jezze [ Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: crosstool-ng |
I think it is an excellent toolchain and Ive used it to compile my os for a long time. |
Author: | Solar [ Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:28 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: crosstool-ng |
Not as long as I have been using the wiki instructions. The other point is, while it would be OK to mention crosstool-ng in the Wiki, or even write an introduction on its use, replacing the existing instructions with those for a third-party tool would be suboptimal IMHO. It would mean that we would have to handle any issues encountered with present and future versions of crosstool-ng here in the forum. By not relying on crosstool-ng, we only have to handle problems with the cross-building process itself, and the occassional "why do I need a crosscompiler in the first place" question. I also think that the current way is more... instructive (no pun intended) as to what's really going on. I don't say that these are "killer arguments", just that there are benefits to describing the "manual" path. |
Author: | dozniak [ Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:22 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: crosstool-ng |
I'm pretty sure that if you're able to undestand and execute manual instructions in the wiki you will be qualified to check and even perhaps fix any crosstool-ng issues. The opposite is not true. |
Author: | eryjus [ Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: crosstool-ng |
Solar wrote: replacing the existing instructions with those for a third-party tool would be suboptimal I never intended to suggest that. Solar wrote: I also think that the current way is more... instructive (no pun intended) as to what's really going on. I can also see the value of the "weed-out" instructions. That answer is good enough for me for why not to mention it. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |