> On 28/06/12 10:17, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Say I want to have the build-essential for i386 installed on amd64.
>> I could install build-essential:i386, replacing gcc/g++:amd64 with
>> gcc/g++:i386. Wouldn't that give me everything needed to cross-compile
>> for i386?
> For evolutions of the same CPU family (i386 vs amd64, powerpc vs
> powerpc64) this sort of works, but after you've installed gcc:i386, you
> can't compile 64-bit code any more (until you reinstall gcc:amd64). That
> means that in practice you use a chroot for 32-bit compilation, and if
> you're doing that, it might as well be a purely i386 chroot that doesn't
> use multiarch.
> For "real" cross-compiling - amd64 vs armel, say - you don't really want
> to be running an armel gcc binary that emits armel machine code (which
> is what gcc:armel is) under qemu emulation: it's technically possible,
> but your build will be rather slow. What you want is an amd64 gcc binary
> that emits armel machine code, which is what gcc-cross-armel:amd64 contains.
Obviously. That's why I refined the idea in the next lines.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
07-17-2012, 06:19 AM
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:47:48 +0100, Wookey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> +++ Svante Signell [2012-06-28 11:43 +0200]:
> > The situation is even more complicated if compiling for different OSes:
> > Like as host (build) Linux:i386 and guest (target) kFreeBSD:amd64 or
> > Hurd:i386. Any plans to support such combinations with
> > cross-build-essential?
> Multiarch should support this and dpkg-architecture already does. So
> if someone wants to maintain toolchains to do this then adding an
> entry to cross-build-essential is easy. (We didn't put everything
> possible supported by dpkg in, because that would be 271 packages :-)
> Does it actually need a conventional cross-toolchain or is it like the
> amd64/i386 case where a chroot and a personality is all that is needed?
> I admit that I haven't thought about the issues for this particular
> case in any detail. Is there actually a demand for being able to do