This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Comparing Bill and Karim's cross-compile scripts. Updating Bill'sto gcc 3.2.3.

From: Dan Kegel <dkegel at ixiacom dot com>
To: Dan Kegel <dkegel at ixiacom dot com>
Cc: crossgcc <crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 17:46:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Comparing Bill and Karim's cross-compile scripts. Updating Bill'sto gcc 3.2.3.
References: <3EC56F4F.30700@ixiacom.com>

Dan Kegel wrote:

388: Karim fixes up paths in ld.so, but Bill doesn't.
Need to remove absolute paths from the ld.so in ${TARGET_PREFIX)/lib;
maybe Bill just forgot to mention that?


Man, I'm getting confused.  glibc-2.1 had a binary as ld.so.
I *think* glibc-2.2 has a text file for ld.so, and the corresponding
binary is ld.so.1.
Maybe when Bill wrote his script, the little text ld.so hadn't
been introduced yet?
- Dan

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Comparing Bill and Karim's cross-compile scripts. Updating Bill'sto gcc 3.2.3.
  - From: Dan Kegel

References:
- Comparing Bill and Karim's cross-compile scripts. Updating Bill'sto gcc 3.2.3.
  - From: Dan Kegel

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]