[uClibc]probs compiling newest binutils against uclibc
Erik Andersen
andersen at codepoet.org
Mon Jan 21 03:52:16 UTC 2002
On Mon Jan 21, 2002 at 01:41:22PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Im not sure what your saying.. do you mean that ld should be compiled to
> be static ?
You can compile ld such that ld links vs the system libc
(i.e. glibc) but is setup to link applications vs uClibc.
This is what I have done and it works fine.
What you seen to want to do is have ld itself linked vs uClibc.
I've not tried that one yet. Thats all I was saying.
> I tried --disable-shared and same problem, i also get the same error
> compiling the stable version that is reported to have worked, what
> options should work ?
>
> I was trying to put together a minimal build environment.
>
> i.e. start with busybox, gcc, and essential binutils tools, all linked
> against uclibc and from there compiling the finial tools, make, glibc,
> gcc, binutils etc. Probably a silly idea...
>
> Trying to create the build environment is where im getting stuck, let
> alone using it.
Sounds pretty cool. I've just not tried that yet. I've been
working on it the other way, i.e. building a cross-compiling
environment that runs on the desktop but produces uClibc linked
apps.
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
More information about the uClibc
mailing list