Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/10/31/13:08:44
Larry,
At 09:54 2002-10-31, you wrote:
>...
>
>
> >> Sounds like you may want to get the source, reconfigure, and build
> >> your own version targeting i386 or i486.
> >
> >A non-trivial job, especially if the very tools are suspect.
>
>
>A potentially non-trivial job, yes, depending on your skills and
>experience building packages. I'm not sure what you're referring to
>by "the very tools are suspect". These tools have been around for a
>long time. They worked when these architectures were the default
>configuration. It shouldn't be too hard to get them working on
>those targets now. If you're referring to the fact that the tools
>don't check if the run-time environment matches the configuration
>environment on start-up, I think labeling the tools as "suspect" for
>this oversight is a little extreme. But I may be missing your meaning.
It does seem there's a bootstrapping problem. If Chuck has only a 486
machine and the only binaries he can get are compiled for post-Pentium
architectures, how will he build compilers and binutils for his hardware?
>Larry
Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA
--
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 -