> If you don't have time to do your dusting, can I be your maid for a day?
> ;) Current Binutils (.18) no longer compiles and I was thinking of
> spending Sunday working on it. I don't have my notes handy, but they
> seem to have re-arranged everything quite a bit. I'd rather work
> towards the b
We're agreed that we don't want a distinct tuple for most purposes. I
suspect we don't need one even for the few special cases that distinguish.
The Hurd itself will always be the primary special case that is
substantially different depending on the microkernel. It is also the
terminus of the dep
> Would it be reasonable to consider overloading the vendor portion of
> this?
We don't need to use a kludge. The second part of the tuple is for
manufacturer of the machine. There is no reason we should overload it.
We can choose a clean and adequate solution and change what places need to
be
> Nowhere, *-gnu-gnu has never been used. The correct format of the
> tuple has always been CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-KERNEL-OPERATING_SYSTEM
> (or the shorter form CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-OPERATING_SYSTEM).
That's not true. The format was originally only the three-part form for
years and was later
The actual history is rather convoluted. I had misremembered what the
current config.sub canonicalization does. I said it always produced a
4-part tuple, but in fact it produces either a 3-part or a 4-part tuple and
I think in practice it's only 4 parts when the last part (os) is "gnu" and
the th
Forgive me my ignorance, but wasn't the kernel the Hurd, while gnumach,
oskit-mach, L4 are just microkernels underneath? I'd have expected
i386-pc-hurd-gnu with no place currently to put the l4/gnumach variant
of the Hurd.
It depends on how picky you want to be with the definition of
Forgive me my ignorance, but wasn't the kernel the Hurd, while gnumach,
oskit-mach, L4 are just microkernels underneath? I'd have expected
i386-pc-hurd-gnu with no place currently to put the l4/gnumach variant
of the Hurd.
On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 13:43, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>So where is *-g
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 03:53:38AM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> But that's not what I want. Do you want to have a separate ABI universe
> for l4-hurd? Do you want Debian to consider l4hurd-i386 a different
> architecture than hurd-i386? Do you want separate toolchains and different
> gcc pred
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 03:53:38AM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Of course, nothing prevents the l4-hurd project from choosing a new tuple
> *-*-l4hurd-gnu and getting that accepted as canonical by config.sub,
> binutils, gcc, etc. (In fact, I have some binutils patches to unify all
> cpu-*-*-gn
To be honest, I don't personally care if it's called
"i386-pc-fred-gnu", but we have the current canonical
i386-pc-gnu-gnu well established already.
Since when exactly? I haven't seen "i386-pc-gnu-gnu" used at all.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[
So where is *-gnu-gnu used?
Nowhere, *-gnu-gnu has never been used. The correct format of the
tuple has always been CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-KERNEL-OPERATING_SYSTEM
(or the shorter form CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-OPERATING_SYSTEM). So a
tuple for say GNU Mach might be: i386-pc-gnumach-gnu and for L4
Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. But the theory (mine anyway) is that it is only libc, hurd,
> and maybe a couple of other special cases that need to think about
> this level of things. We can consider them individually once we
> agree that they are special cases. (The other one
> Then how should glibc be configured when built for Hurd on L4? glibc
> needs to know if it should use l4 or mach sysdeps, right? Let's also
> assume it's cross compiled, to rule out some other means for testing.
Right. But the theory (mine anyway) is that it is only libc, hurd, and
maybe a coup
I don't know that this is exactly a bug, more of a yet to be supported
kind of a thing I believe. However, I don't really know where else to
take these questions - sorry in advance for any wasted time.
NVidia hosts linux drivers on their site for the NForce board's
ethernet capabilities. Sadly
Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Should we be reporting the microkernel in the GNU triple?
>
> I think we would prefer not to.
Then how should glibc be configured when built for Hurd on L4? glibc
needs to know if it should use l4 or mach sysdeps, right? Let's also
assume it's cross
15 matches
Mail list logo
