Re: [MiNT] GCC 4.2.2 - Keith's Latest Progress (or lack thereof)

[MiKRO <miro.kropacek@gmail.com>]

> I *could* try to build an RPM, especially since I already have a native
> source tree all built and sitting on my Falcon, I would have to do a lot
> of cheating, but its better than letting RPM run for 24+ hours going thru
> the whole process again.
>
I think we should wait until we get 100% working (in term of comparing
to gcc 2.95) gcc4 and then make RPM from that.

> The big question is do I create an RPM that just goes ahead and replaces
> the installed GCC 2.95?
>
I think this shouldn't be problem, just create gcc with the suffix
-4.2.2 and everybody is free to choose (and link to /usr/bin/gcc the
one he prefers). But of course, this assumes we'll solve that problem
with gcc2-mintlib and gcc4 compilation.

> I am building ScummVM natively (to see if the thunk problems still exist
> with GCC 4.2.2, already had one wierd issue with configure, their custom
> configure did not like the cross compiled g++ (doing g++ -dumpversion,
> reported bad version when looking for 2.95 or > up to 4.9.9) but liked the
> native compiled one, really wierd, but thats something I'll look into more
> later.  I might start with binutils tonight when it completes.
>
huh that's pretty strange. so you say your only problem with c++ was
you used old binutils patch? i don't remember now, how g++4 worked
with binutils2.13? I mean with native build.

> As far as I can tell, RPMs basically have to be built on the machine
> natively, I have seen it said that they can be cross compiled, but never
> found any good documentation on how to do it.
>
I'd be interested, too. Aranym is nice but not such superior to ct60
than cross-compilation. I think developers from 90s for
freemint/mintlib used cross-compilation, too (Guido?).

-- 
MiKRO / Mystic Bytes
http://mikro.atari.org