[Buildroot] glibc vs uclibc
thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com
Sat Mar 19 07:42:56 UTC 2011
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:37:20 -0700
Charles Krinke <charles.krinke at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a request to provide our MPC8323E build with both uclibc and
> glibc support in seperate builds so this leads to a question or at
> least an education of my naivety.
> Can we build glibc as well as uclibc with buildroot? If so, how is it
> done? I *did* go looking for this switch and did not find it, so this
> is the opportunity for someone to say "its right there in file x,
In Buildroot, there are three ways to handle the toolchain "problem" :
* Let Buildroot generate a toolchain. This has been the traditional
and default Buildroot configuration for years, but is limited to
uClibc based toolchains.
* Let Buildroot use an external toolchain. In that case, Buildroot
does not build the toolchain, it relies on an already existing one.
You can get existing pre-built external toolchains from CodeSourcery
for example, but you can also build your own with Yann E. Morin's
Crosstool-NG project. Since Buildroot is no longer responsible for
the toolchain, it's up to the existing toolchain to be glibc or
uclibc based. CodeSourcery toolchains are generally glibc-based, but
Crosstool-NG allows to build glibc, eglibc or uclibc based
* Let Buildroot use Crosstool-NG as a backend to compile the
toolchain. In that case Buildroot will build the toolchain and not
rely on an existing one, but instead of using internal code to do
so, it uses Crosstool-NG to do the work. As Crosstool-NG is used,
you can also build glibc, eglibc or uclibc based toolchains here.
To sum up: with the two last options, yes, you can produce and use
glibc and uclibc based toolchains. I am regularly using both.
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
More information about the buildroot