Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:45:20 +0300 From: Alex Semenyaka <flist@jabberwock.rinet.ru> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: world's toolchain & CPUTYPE Message-ID: <20060228044520.GB35526@stupid.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20060226185721.GF42677@ip.net.ua> References: <20060226155009.GB6435@comp.chem.msu.su> <20060226185721.GF42677@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ruslan, On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 08:57:21PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > More details: during the install, part of the toolchain and > some special install tools that were built on the "build" > host are used. They have been built using that host's > toolchain, CFLAGS, libraries, etc., but libraries is the > most important factor. That means that the "install" host > should be CPU/syscall/etc. compatible with the "build" Isn't is reasonable to add corresponding optional functionality into the buld process? For example, if -DSTATIC_TOOLCHAIN (or pick any other name) is set, then: 1) build toolchain statically linked 2) use newly built libraries to link instead of libraries of "build" host 3) set __MAKE_CONF to /dev/null to eliminate CPU optimization (which is really not so important for toolchain). It does not look dangerous, and it will break nothing since administrator will hav to take special action to turn it on. -- Sincerely, Alex Semenyaka
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060228044520.GB35526>