From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 19 13:51:10 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6541065679 for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 13:51:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA5C8FC16 for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 13:51:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id n4JDp8f1014743; Tue, 19 May 2009 09:51:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Tue, 19 May 2009 09:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:51:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: xorquewasp@googlemail.com In-Reply-To: <20090519114548.GA8610@logik.internal.network> Message-ID: References: <20090505005128.GA4519@logik.internal.network> <20090505022151.GA32477@logik.internal.network> <20090506140325.GA69468@logik.internal.network> <20090506152222.GC69468@logik.internal.network> <20090508211022.GA37475@logik.internal.network> <20090518084831.GA95354@logik.internal.network> <20090519114548.GA8610@logik.internal.network> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bootstrapping gnat GCC on amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:51:10 -0000 On Tue, 19 May 2009, xorquewasp@googlemail.com wrote: > On 2009-05-18 18:36:15, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> Well, I used a newer binutils on sparc when I did the original >> port. Once I built the cross compiler and binutils toolset, >> I was done with it. After the native compiler is built using >> the cross tools, you should be able to rebuild the native >> compiler _again_ but this time with the system (amd64) >> binutils. > > I probably should point out that I don't think this is the case anymore. > > GCC apparently detects what capabilities the currently selected binutils > have so when the first native compiler has been compiled using the > cross, it will emit code that can't be assembled using the system > binutils (because it uses features from the new binutils that aren't > supported by the older system ones). In other words, you can't rebuild the > native compiler using the system binutils. > > If the worst comes to the worst, I can create a dependency on the > devel/cross-binutils port. Even so, you shouldn't need a cross-binutils, only a native (amd64) binutils. Your port won't be a cross port, but a native amd64 port. The native amd64 GNAT will need a native binutils, not a cross binutils. The only thing you will have to make is a minimal bootstrap (native amd64) compiler. Of course you can create a cross port if you want to facilitate cross builds for ports that don't exist yet, but no one running amd64 will want to make a cross build when they can make a faster native build with less dependencies. -- DE