| # 07:19:54 | cpackham[m] | quits : Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM |
| # 07:24:01 | cpackham[m] | joins #crosstool-ng |
| # 11:05:17 | cpackham[m] | quits : Quit: User was banned |
| # 12:49:13 | cpackham[m] | joins #crosstool-ng |
| # 15:25:07 | nrb | joins #crosstool-ng |
| # 15:26:09 | nrb | hello, any of my x86_64 -> aarch64 cross toolchains is smaller than any linaro toolchain. is there a linaro based .config for crosstool-ng so i can compare what is missing with my toolchain? |
| # 17:23:20 | nrb | quits : Quit: Lost terminal |
| # 19:18:09 | eliadcohen | joins #crosstool-ng |
| # 23:57:23 | cpackham[m] | @nrb I haven't tested it but in theory it should be possible to compile using aarch64-gcc -mabi=ilp32 but you'd also need a set of libraries compiled that way. This is probably subtly different to arm32 so it may not result in something you could then take to a genuine 32-bit SoC |
| # 23:57:24 | cpackham[m] | As for linaro there isn't anything in-tree. I'm not sure if they publish their toolchain configs anywhere (or if they even use ct-ng). |
| # 23:57:24 | cpackham[m] | First time I've heard someone complain that their toolchain is too small, makes a nice change :P |