Package Details: arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc 14.2.1.git+ab884fffe3f-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc
Description: The GNU Compiler Collection
Upstream URL: https://gcc.gnu.org
Licenses: GPL, custom, LGPL, FDL
Conflicts: arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc-stage1, arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc-stage2
Provides: arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc-stage1, arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc-stage2
Replaces: arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc-stage1, arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc-stage2
Submitter: tavianator
Maintainer: wgottwalt
Last Packager: wgottwalt
Votes: 81
Popularity: 1.15
First Submitted: 2015-09-14 15:41 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-12-05 18:03 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last »

tavianator commented on 2016-07-29 21:12 (UTC)

@1ace: What patch?

1ace commented on 2016-07-29 09:03 (UTC)

Your patch doesn't apply anymore, looks like it needs to be rebased :)

tavianator commented on 2015-12-11 22:50 (UTC)

@zenolijo: I hear that it's possible to do a 2-stage cross-compiler build, but I'm not sure how. If anyone knows I'm happy to accept patches!

rpodgorny commented on 2015-11-04 22:08 (UTC)

@zenolijo: yup, just follow the dependency chain replacing gcc with the appropriate stages as you go...

zenolijo commented on 2015-11-04 20:49 (UTC)

This package conflicts with gcc-stage1 and 2, glibc has gcc-stage2 as a makedepend and glibc-headers depends on gcc-stage1. So i compile gcc two times, and then finally replace it with a third one? I have no experience with cross compiling, but is this really necessary?

FreddieChopin commented on 2015-10-16 16:15 (UTC)

Hmm... For now I'm using the toolchain provided by ArchLinuxArm. GCC accepts the options, but I'm reluctant to consider that as a confirmation of full compatibility (; I think that to work with multiple targets this toolchain would need a multilib, and this could be pretty complicated. The multilib configuration for bare-metal ARM microcontrollers is pretty complex, this one would probably be comparable (at least).

tavianator commented on 2015-10-16 14:41 (UTC)

@FreddieChopin: The only ARM devices I can test on are RPis, so I'm not really sure! But I assume that if gcc accepts the flags then it should work. The main thing I'd worry about is the calling conventions with glibc, you may have to recompile that.

FreddieChopin commented on 2015-10-15 09:21 (UTC)

Small question - if I want to compile for BeagleBone Black (with Arch installed), can I use this toolchain (configured as "--with-arch=armv6 --with-float=hard --with-fpu=vfp") but passing "-march=armv7-a -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=vfpv3-d16" to the compiler, or maybe I should recompile the whole toolchain (and its dependencies) with correct flags? The standard "Hello world" test program works with the first option, but is doesn't use FPU (;

tavianator commented on 2015-09-18 00:24 (UTC)

@kozzi: Okay great! I should've put some more minimal version requirements on these packages I guess. Next update I'll do that :)

kozzi commented on 2015-09-17 11:10 (UTC)

@tavianator So after remove all of my arm-linux-gnueabihf* packages, everything seems OK. So it has been probably caused by some obsolete package from 4.9 version

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last »