snapgear ucfront and uclibc 0.9.28.2 warnings

[David McCullough]

Jivin Rob Landley lays it down ...
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 8:12 pm, David McCullough wrote:
> > I would have to say that ucfront has proven to be anything but a hack.
> > When you want to use a compiler,  but you don't care for it's libc/it's
> > kernel headers or anything else it has included,  a wrapper allows you
> > to do the --nostdlib/--nostdinc thing and use your own.
> 
> I've been meaning to look at the ucfront wrapper, but it's buried a bit down 
> on my todo list.  The one I've been using is working fine for me (although I 
> need to test more packages and C++ support in my version is only theoretical 
> and totally untested at the moment).
> 
> The wrapper I'm using was actually maintained by Chris Faylor for timesys for 
> something like 3 years before I got ahold of it, so it's already been greatly 
> extended and made to work with gclibc and was a hideously ugly piece of...  
> Ahem, I did a lot of cleanup.

ucfront frontends gcc/g++ and ld.  IIRC it's based on ccache or distcc.
Pretty easy to read/modify last time I looked.

> > I think the purpose of the wrapper in this case is quite different to
> > what the uClibc wrapper did,  and if not,  then fine,  it is working for
> > our context on many arch's unmodified,  obviously it didn't work in the
> > uClibc context.
> 
> The fundamental problem is you either need a compiler built 
> with --disable-shared or a version of libgcc_s.so built against uClibc for 
> the appropriate target.  The only way to get _either_ is to build gcc from 
> source, so there's no getting away from that.  A wrapper doesn't help you 
> there.

We build our own,  but we only want to do it once,  not everytime we
change a lib or header or whatever.

> Some people think that if you build gcc from source you can patch its' 
> internal path logic and thus don't need a wrapper, which generally means 
> they've either A) never tried it, B) never tried to do anything fancy, C) 
> been very lucky.  The path logic in gcc is a _crawling_horror_.  Run the 
> sucker under strace sometime if you don't believe me.

:-)

Cheers,
Davidm

-- 
David McCullough,  david_mccullough at securecomputing.com,   Ph:+61 734352815
Secure Computing - SnapGear  http://www.uCdot.org http://www.cyberguard.com