[oe] Can cross binutils and gcc be made independent of ARM version?

[pHilipp Zabel]

On 3/10/07, Koen Kooi <k.kooi at student.utwente.nl> wrote:
> Quoting pHilipp Zabel <philipp.zabel at gmail.com>:
>
> > On 3/10/07, Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.kabel.utwente.nl> wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > pHilipp Zabel schreef:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > currently binutils-cross, glibc-intermediate and gcc-cross have the
> > > > PACKAGE_ARCH set by the MACHINE, in my case armv4t or armv5te,
> > > > depending on the device. This causes them to be built twice,
> > > > overwriting each other in CROSS_DIR when building a single
> > > > distribution for all machines. Is it possible to change PACKAGE_ARCH
> > > > to just "arm" for arm cross packages and glibc-intermediate so that
> > > > binutils/gcc only have to be built once?
> > >
> > > libgcc and libc6.so arm architecture specific, so they indeed need to get
> > built multiple
> > > times. You don't want every app to SIGILL because you built your machines
> > in the wrong
> > > order :(
> >
> > Ah, thanks for clearing that up :(
> > So I understand we need multiple builds to get libgcc for every arch.
> > But what about the contents of CROSS_DIR?
> > ${CROSS_DIR}/arm-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/lib/libgcc_s.so will be built
> > for either arch, depending on the order the machine toolchains are
> > built.
> > Is this just not important, or does it mean I can't build for multiple
> > arm architectures in the same build dir at all?
>
> Cross/ (and staging/) aren't the problem, OE packaging libgcc1 from gcc-cross
> is.

Yes, I understood the latter. I'm just confused by things like the
libgcc_s.so copy in cross. If it doesn't matter whether it's the
armv4t or armv5te version, does it have to be there at all?
Hm. I guess this might just be out of scope for the current
cross/staging implementation.

regards
Philipp