|
From: M. R. B. <mr...@0x...> - 2001-09-11 20:39:40
|
* Joseph Paris <pa...@mc...> on Tue, Sep 11, 2001: > Are the patch files built and ready to go? Or do they still have to be > generated off what we have now? > Um, did you read my last post? I've included it here just in case. M. R. > --Joe > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, M. R. Brown wrote: > > > * Joseph Paris <pa...@mc...> on Tue, Sep 11, 2001: > > > > > I put together a ps2-dvp-binutils package that one should be able to do a > > > ./configure --target=dvp and have it produce the correct binutils... The > > > build process may be a bit twichty, but i think i've resolved most of > > > those problems.... This is built off the snsys ee-binutils source. If > > > there is a need for it, i can send it. > > > > > > Can someone help explain why there needs to be so many different sets of > > > binutils for ps2 dev? Is there a reasonable way to start combining these? > > > > > > > There doesn't need to be. You can combine the iop and ee/dvp patches into > > one binutils and gcc source that you can use to build all toolsets. > > AFAICT, you could even use the *same* compiler for the IOP and EE by using > > custom gcc specs and options. > > > > In a few days I'll be asking the binutils and gcc folks why these patches > > never made it in and if there is any objection to them being included into > > mainline binutils and gcc. But the patches do need to be cleaned up and > > rewritten (to an extent) for the current binutils and gcc stock (the > > patches are over 2 years old). > > > > If anyone else (Sony or Cygnus/Redhat) has any other insight into these > > tools I'd appreciate hearing them. > > > > M. R. > > > > |