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

[Groepaz <gr...@gm...>]

On Saturday 16 July 2005 00:57, Arthur Othieno wrote:

> 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"

...which is probably one of the reasons of little interest in gc-linux among 
the ppl in the gcdev channel. i've personally dropped it myself coz when i 
complained a while back (even on this list) that gc-linux cant be compiled 
with a "clean" gcc, ppl would keep telling me to use that uclibc toolchain 
instead of fixing whatever is borked in the makefiles. (it were trivial 
things, that much i remember)

> > 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.

imho its not very smart to use seperate distributions of binutils und gcc, 
update them seperatly and all that, its just asking for trouble. and there 
are reasons for so many ppl to use devkitpro - it just works damn well.

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

ofcourse, no problem with that. the point when its starting to get bad is when 
someone relies on certain specific things that are only present in a specific 
setup - like the gclinux makefiles do.

-- 
http://www.hitmen-console.org
http://www.gc-linux.org/docs/yagcd.html
http://www.pokefinder.org