info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
EMX cross compiler
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Jason Stevens
Jun 17, 2015, 9:03:00 PM6/17/15
to
Has anyone ever built a Linux or OS X to EMX cross compiler environment?
I managed to get GCC to build, along with the assembler but the linker
always fails on me.
As far as I can tell the EMX changes were never folded back into
mainstream binutils or gcc.
Does anyone have any idea?
Yes, I know I'm 20 years late to the party.
I managed to get GCC to build, along with the assembler but the linker
always fails on me.
As far as I can tell the EMX changes were never folded back into
mainstream binutils or gcc.
Does anyone have any idea?
Yes, I know I'm 20 years late to the party.
Dave Yeo
Jun 18, 2015, 1:02:41 AM6/18/15
to
You're right that our fork was never merged back upstream for some
reason, perhaps RMS vetoed it as he was in charge back then. If you look
at our LD it is so old that it is GPL v1 with RMS as the principle coder.
For the linker, you might want to try going the OMF route and use the
OpenWatcom linker as it is cross platform and open source. Might need to
update emxomfld to call it correctly (see how kLIBC does it) and use the
version that kLIBC uses. At that if you want to build a cross-compiler,
why not use kLIBC instead of EMX? It's much newer and much compiles
easily with it compared to old EMX where the headers are ancient and
same with GCC 2.8.1.
Here is one tool I came across and considered testing as I've always
been interested in a cross-compiler as well,
http://build-cc.rkeene.org/fossil/home
Dave
Jason Stevens
Jun 18, 2015, 6:04:13 AM6/18/15
to
In article <558250f0$0$64455$c3e8da3$b280...@news.astraweb.com>,
dave....@gmail.com says...
Getting GCC to build wasn't too hard, along with the binutils, there is
enough in there, and EMX thinks it's UNIX enough to get an i386 32bit OS to
compile it. Mostly it was file renaming.
I don't know why I didn't think of the OMF route, I guess I was thinking of
keeping the toolchain 1:1.
For my MS-DOS stuff I still use 2.95.3 although I know the DJGPP people have
a 5.10 branch going on right now. But my stuff isn't all that exciting
feature wise, so it's OK for now.
At the moment I ftp my objects, and link on the target. Not the best, but I
have to run on the target anyways so it's not as bad. Of course compiling
on OS X is a billion times faster, but it's really not fair to compare OS/2
2.00 vs OS X 10.10.
Thanks for the fossil link I'll check it out.
Jason
dave....@gmail.com says...
enough in there, and EMX thinks it's UNIX enough to get an i386 32bit OS to
compile it. Mostly it was file renaming.
I don't know why I didn't think of the OMF route, I guess I was thinking of
keeping the toolchain 1:1.
For my MS-DOS stuff I still use 2.95.3 although I know the DJGPP people have
a 5.10 branch going on right now. But my stuff isn't all that exciting
feature wise, so it's OK for now.
At the moment I ftp my objects, and link on the target. Not the best, but I
have to run on the target anyways so it's not as bad. Of course compiling
on OS X is a billion times faster, but it's really not fair to compare OS/2
2.00 vs OS X 10.10.
Thanks for the fossil link I'll check it out.
Jason
0 new messages