Talk:OS Specific Toolchain: Difference between revisions

From OSDev.wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Re: The future of toolchain articles)
(No difference)

Revision as of 17:21, 13 September 2007

Excellent work! As for how to continue with this... I was originally intending what is the GCC Cross-Compiler article today to become a multi-part tutorial, starting with the cross-compiler setup and ending with a self-supporting OS. You can see the stubs for the later steps in the article. Of course I would prefer that tutorial to include PDCLib instead of newlib, but newlib is available today. Maybe it's time to expand the cross-compiler tut. into the multi-part thing it was originally meant to be? Opinions? Solar 06:21, 13 September 2007 (CDT)


I'm not familiar enough with the inner workings of gcc and binutils to say something meaningful about it, but I wonder to what extent a stage 2/3 cross-compiler would be buildable with a plain unmodified i586-elf target. If it is, this tutorial is just a sidestep for the geeks who see the uses of a specifically named toolchain (or just want gcc to be named after them) and the cross-compiler tutorial is mostly independent.
On the other hand, the cross-compiler tutorial is for most people to just get a stage 1 compiler which is suitable for kernel development. It could be wise to use the crosscompiler page for just that, and build a stage 2/3 and stage 4 crosscompiler in separate articles (something like, this article and Porting GCC).
I posted a PM to the author in the meantime in which I said that this article is very well suited for inclusion in the main namespace. Independent of what we are to do with it, I don't think we should withhold other uses from finding and using this article. At worst somebody discover errors, which isn't even too bad since we can fix that later.
@Solar: I tried once building a stage 2 gcc with PDCLib but it failed with conflicting types for size_t so I guess newlib is for now the way to go.
- Combuster 10:46, 13 September 2007 (CDT)