From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Sep 26 12:01:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA22238 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ingenieria ([168.176.15.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA22227 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unalmodem.usc.unal.edu.co by ingenieria (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05455; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:44:50 -0400 Message-ID: <342BF562.266B@asme.org> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:48:18 -0700 From: "Pedro Giffuni S," Organization: Universidad Nacional de Colombia X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold [it] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Smith CC: Terry Lambert , bartol@salk.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: problem compiling for linux under compat_linux References: <199709260818.RAA00553@word.smith.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Mike Smith wrote: > > > I've never thought running a Linux compiler in > > a compat directory would work because it would invoke FreeBSD pieces > > for hidden components. > > It doesn't. About the only time you trip up is when something like > autoconf goes looking for things (most especially ranlib) and finds the > FreeBSD version because there isn't a Linux one. > I've always thought we should use crosscompilers (like SCO's) and not emulated native compilers. It has the advantage of not requiring emulation and of handling better autoconf. I would like to hear some feedback if I should build a Linux crossgcc, like I did for SCO. Beware, the native Linux compiler has two advantages that I know of: 1) It comes out of the box with all the libraries required for X and network support, something that would require additional packages for a FreeBSD crosscompiler. 2) It behaves exactly like the original compiler and is always a good way of testing the emulator :^). Pedro.