Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<006801c14b43$1cc418b0$01000001@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	"Jacob Hansen" <luffe AT diku DOT dk>
Cc:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<NDBBIGGMJLNHIFCCHHLJOEOFCEAA DOT luffe AT diku DOT dk>
Subject:	Re: Building the cygwin.dll for other architectures
Date:	Tue, 2 Oct 2001 23:06:50 +1000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacob Hansen" <luffe AT diku DOT dk>

Please keep you replies cc'd to the list.

> ok..thanks for your answer. Sounds like this is not a viable option -
I
> suppose a port of Samba directly should take a similar amount of time.

I don't know enought to comment

> Why can't I use LINKLOC to link object files created by gcc, and
thereby
> target ETS directly?

Why not ask on an appropriate list - as I have no idea what LINKLOC
takes as input and output I cannot even guess at the feasability of
this. If the actual platform has no source-level differences prevent
newlib, or libiberty from being targeted then this could shave a lot of
time off, I suppose, but it would make building your distributed source
very hard for your users.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -