Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:16:59 +0100 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cross compilation goals. Message-ID: <3833C40B.EC5290CF@scc.nl> References: <19991117184034.A53402@dragon.nuxi.com>, <199911180559.WAA21245@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh wrote: > > In private Mail, David O'Brian asked the musical questions: > : Would it be possible ... [to] discuss the issue and come up > : with a unified plan? Either privately, or on the freebsd-arch list? > > 7) Be useful for a buildworld replacement which will solve > the problem of tools generating binaries to build the rest > of the system that cannot run on the system at hand due to > new kernel functionalty. My history of thoughts (in no particular order): The sigset_t changes revealed 2 problems: 1) I wasn't able to at least compile any changes I made to the Alpha port, because I didn't have an Alpha during that time, 2) makeworld broke because the newly compiled tools were made against the new sigset_t while the system wasn't using it yet. If we fix 1), then 2) is gone too, right? right! So, the idea of cross-compilation was born. From now on I will call the ability to make an i386 world on a non-i386 host a cross-build. This to avoid confusion with cross-compilation: The ability to translate language A (C/asm) to language B (alpha machine code) whilst the translators are written in language C (i386 machine code). Cross-compilation and cross-building don't share the same problem-space and each have a different set of goals (non necessarily disjunct). The goals Warner gave were mostly those in the cross-building domain, right? I think jb has its goals more in the cross-compilation domain, right? My priorities are in the cross-building domain, because a release is coming soon and we need to restore the upgrade path. After cross-building has been done, everybody is free and encouraged to implement cross-compilation. My personal thoughts on the subject of the ability to make cross-compilers from within our source tree are *at this time* dominated by it's use for cross-building. I don't see a point to bloat our source tree with the ability to make a cross-compilation toolset for NT (for example) while there's this really neat ports collection in which we can add anything that's not directly related/necessary for out base-system. My suggestion is this: Let's talk cross-building first and fix our make world. When release 4.0 is out we have the time and the (inner) peace to discuss how we think we should help developers that eat cross-compilers for breakfast :-) -- Marcel Moolenaar mailto:marcel@scc.nl SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/ The FreeBSD project mailto:marcel@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3833C40B.EC5290CF>