Movatterモバイル変換

This is the mail archive of thebinutils@sources.redhat.commailing list for thebinutils project.

Re: Combined toolchain build

• From: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
• To: sjackman at pathwayconnect dot com
• Cc: drow at mvista dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
• Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:42:12 -0400
• Subject: Re: Combined toolchain build
• References: <1057010110.3121.29.camel@bluesteel.pathway> <20030630215945.GA23987@nevyn.them.org> <1057012693.3121.35.camel@bluesteel.pathway>

In general, you should avoid doing a combined tree using releasedbranches of packages.  The combined tree is best when you're workingwith the current development branches, because the common parts willthen be in sync.If you're building released packages, it's best to build them inseparate trees, because of the problems you mention.  However, in thecase of libiberty, it's often possible to simply use whicheverlibiberty seems newer, or in some cases, just use the developmentversion of libiberty and include from the binutils project (binutils'include has more files than gcc's).

• References:
  • Combined toolchain build
    • From: Shaun Jackman
  • Re: Combined toolchain build
    • From: Daniel Jacobowitz
  • Re: Combined toolchain build
    • From: Shaun Jackman