From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 8 10:21:47 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA11243 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA11234 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA26093; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:19:48 -0600 Message-Id: <199604081719.LAA26093@rover.village.org> To: Robert Withrow Subject: Re: GNU binutils port Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 08 Apr 1996 08:49:34 EDT Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 11:19:47 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk : As you noticed, cross building is a legitimate reason for wanting : both gcc and binutils to compile on FreeBSD. gcc builds out of the box for cross compiling on FreeSBD. Since the ports are designed to have just a make done and it works, there is no need to have gcc as a port. The reason being that you must do some manual configuration before the cross compilation will work. I thought thte whole point of doing a "port" was to eliminate that. Also, building a cross compiler can still be a bit of a black art. It is best done by hand because there are a number of niggling little logistical issues that trip up people in the process. I think that I must be missing something here... Warner