bin/arm-none-eabi-gcc vs. arm-none-eabi/bin/gcc

Question

What's the difference between them?

I took this example from CodeSourcery toolchain but I've met similar structure in other toolchains.

Both of them appear to have the same size. On my Linux host the files have different i-nodes, so those are two different files.

Is it just for naming convenience?

I've come across at least one difference although I'm not sure if it is a real difference and not a bug. If I run

<installation path>/bin/arm-none-eabi-gcc -v -xc -

in order to see the default include paths I get some. But if I do the same with

<installation path>/arm-none-eabi/bin/gcc -v -xc -

then the list of paths is empty.

Does anyone know the truth about it?

LB-- · Accepted Answer · 2013-10-20 04:50:41Z

2

In <installation>/bin you have the official executables which should be used, whereas in <installation>/<target>/bin you have executables for internal use only - you should not invoke them, and they should not be in your PATH.

As a reference, there is actually a README.txt in that folder telling you what they are for and why you should not use them or have them in your PATH.

answered Oct 20, 2013 at 4:50

LB--

3,2383 gold badges40 silver badges82 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

krokoziabla Over a year ago

Indeed there is README.txt there repeating what you've said. Thanks very much.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

bin/arm-none-eabi-gcc vs. arm-none-eabi/bin/gcc

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related