[uClibc] Toolchains thoroughly inadequate

Erik Andersen andersen at codepoet.org
Wed Dec 31 21:46:04 UTC 2003


On Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 10:45:48AM -0500, Keith R. John Warno wrote:
> * Mark Robson <slarty2 at ntlworld.com> [31/12/2003 0921EST]:
> > Dear All, I've used uclibc for a while, and the old gcc wrappers
> > always used to work well.
> > 
> > Ok, I've read the thread suggesting that the wrappers are no longer
> > the way to go - that seems fine.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, I have been unable to get or obtain a working toolchain
> > (i386)
> [snip]
> 
> I have been using uClibc 0.9.24 for less than 24 hours but have spent
> 13+ hours beating it and a native i386 uClibc-targetted toolchain into
> submission.  Granted I haven't built much against the uClibc yet (other
> than libtool, ncurses, and bash), it seems to work (so far).  After such
> a pain (and a throbbing headache this morning), and the similar anguish
> of others on this list, I feel obligated to share what I did -- however
> correct or not -- with others on this list.

Why did you spend such time?  Why not grab the pre-built x86
development environment
	http://www.uclibc.org/FAQ.html#dev_systems
and use that?  It works fine for me...

Anyway, as Larry Wall is fond of saying, there is more than one
way to do it.  If you don't choose to use my way (which is the
method that is known to work and has been well tested by the
uClibc developers) that is perfectly fine.  Just don't expect any
sympathy for your throbbing headaches.  :-)

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--



More information about the uClibc mailing list