[uClibc] Re: binutils-uClibc followup patch

[Dan Kegel]

Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:09:05PM -0800, Carl Miller wrote:
> 
>>>>Agree with the intent of the patches. I cannot build binutils however. I
>>>>configure with --target=i386-pc-linux-uclibc but I get the following error
>>>>when building:
> 
> Is there any reason not to use the obvious "simple, no patching needed"
> tuple: i386-uclibc-linux-gnu ?

Which brings up the question: how about I start using the tuple
   i386-glibc-linux-gnu
for crosstool's glibc toolchains, just to be uniform?
That second field is supposed to be for vendor name, but in the free
software world, the C library name seems like a good thing to stick there...

There is one small hitch: on the ppc, I've been using that second
field to indicate cpu type, since ppc405-unknown-linux-gnu doesn't
work.  Maybe I should submit gcc/glibc/binutils patches to allow ppc405
etc. in the first field...

- Dan