Strategy for packaging an ARM Cortex-M toolchain

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at
Fri May 25 03:51:21 UTC 2012

On 05/25/2012 05:29 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/24/2012 03:21 PM, Rob Spanton wrote:
>> Hi Ralf,
>> I wrote:
>>> So is it best to attempt to get one arm-binutils package and remove
>>> redundancy, or is it going to be more productive to just put up with
>>> the redundancy for now?
>> Ralf wrote:
>>> No, this will hardly work and would be a nightmare to maintain.
>> I had guessed that binutils didn't care what the ABI was.
> True, AFAICS.
> However, consider that
> - binutils is only a comparativly small part of a target's toolchain.
> - a target's binutils may require target-specific patching.
> - there can be implicit couplings/incompatibilities between a target's
> binutils and other components of a cross-toolchain.
>> Maybe I'm
>> wrong about that, or is there something else that I'm missing that'd
>> prevent this from working?
> You are not necessarily wrong. I agree, using a "combined binutils" is
> possibile in many cases (But not always).
> It's just that, when taking into account that using a "combo" is close
> to impossible for other components of a cross-toolchain (esp. GCC),
> trying use "combined binutils" is simplier and "not worth the effort", IMO.
Sorry, typo. This was ment to be 'not trying to use "combined binutils"..'


More information about the devel mailing list