[fpc-pascal] cross compiling enigma

[Sam Liddicott]

Sam Liddicott wrote:
> Sam Liddicott wrote:
>> * Marco van de Voort wrote, On 07/12/07 08:20:
>>>> I'm modifying the lazarus packaging scripts to make building debs of 
>>>> lazarus, fpc and cross-fpc variants simpler than it is. (Cross is not 
>>>> simple right now)
>>>>
>>>> I've read the buildfaq (thanks Marco) and various fpc build scripts but 
>>>> am still puzzled in this respect:
>>>>
>>>> Why does:
>>>>
>>>> $ cd fpc
>>>> $make clean all OS_TARGET=win32  FPC=/usr/bin/ppc386
>>>>
>>>> make:
>>>> ./compiler/ppc386.exe
>>>>
>>>> I thought I was building a cross-compiler, not cross-compiling one - or 
>>>> is it a side effect of building the rtl etc?
>>>>     
>>>
>>> The thing you are missing (read buildfaq better :-) is that FPC doesn't have
>>> to be cross for platforms on the same architecture.
>>>   
>>
>> :-(
>> I used 386-win32 for testing the script because FPC-SVN won't compile
>> for arm-wince - I'll try a ppc build for the test then.
>>
>> So... because the makefile knew it was compiling for the same
>> architecture it decided that I wasn't building an fpc cross compiler
>> but cross building an fpc compiler? That's a bit unexpectedly clever...
> So... this time:
> $ make clean all CPU_TARGET=powerpc OS_TARGET=linux
> FPC=/usr/bin/ppc386 BINUTILSPREFIX=/usr/bin/powerpc-linux-gnu-
>
> And, just like before, it has created a load of powerpc binaries:
>
> $ file /tmp/fpc_patchdir/fpc_build/usr/bin/postw32
> /tmp/fpc_patchdir/fpc_build/usr/bin/postw32: ELF 32-bit MSB
> executable, PowerPC or cisco 4500, version 1 (SYSV), statically
> linked, stripped
>
>
> So I'm still puzzled that the recipe for creating a cross compiler is
> actually cross-compiling a compiler and cross-compiling the tools.
>
> Of course,  compiler/ppcrossppc was created, but it seems as a
> precursor to creating all the powerpc binaries.
>
> So I still think I'm doing it wrong; was my make command line correct
> to produce an fpc instance that will cross-compile for powerpc-linux?
I guess my mistake was in "make all", possibly a less encompassing
target would be better :-) like make cycle or whatever.

Sam