Re: [Gc-linux-devel] binutils-2.16.1

[<a.o...@bl...>]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 11:25:21PM +0200, Groepaz wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 23:13, Arthur Othieno wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 11:02:21PM +0200, Groepaz wrote:
> > > isnt most of what you are talking about already in the devkitpro
> > > toolchain for a long time?
> >
> > I don't know. I haven't used that toolchain.
> >
> > But that's exactly what I'm trying to point out. There is no central
> > repository, per se, for this development.
> 
> well, to be honest, "everyone" who does gc development -except a few gc-linux 
> ppl- uses that toolchain. it IS pretty much the central development
> repository. (and that toolchain is very popular among gba, gp32 and psp 
> developers aswell, its very stable and well maintained, its even used in some 
> commercial projects and preferred over the "official" toolchains)

And so is buildroot[1]. The uClibc toolchain is simply pre-configured
to target ppc. Apart from that, nothing fancy.

AFAIK, no one has slapped the "official" moniker over it. Allow me to
quote myself[2]:

  "That said, the recommended compiler, for both kernel and userspace,
   is the uClibc one: http://uclibc.org/toolchains.html"

> i personally never understood why the gc-linux ppl made their own stuff in that 
> area. maybe some ppl should visit the gcdev irc channel on efnet more 
> often :=P
 
Ok, this sounds a little too religious. Besides, we are talking about
_binutils_ here, and not about (a collective) toolchain $foo vs.
toolchain $bar. That alone is another debate of it's own, and one
in which I have no interest participating.

I use what works for me, and I'm pretty sure everyone else uses what
works for _them_. It's only natural.


[1] http://buildroot.uclibc.org/
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.game-cube.devel/237