This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See crosstool-NG for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi, On 05/18/2016 02:11 PM, Bryan Hundven wrote:
(Added Alexey Neyman, who did the multilib work)On May 18, 2016, at 5:33 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Bryan, On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Bryan Hundven <bryanhundven@gmail.com> wrote:On May 17, 2016, at 6:19 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, In 2014 there has been some work on multilib support in crosstool-ng, by Bryan Hundven, Cody P. Schafer, and Ray Donnelly. See e.g. mail threads [1] and [2]. It looks as if this work has not been integrated in crosstool-ng. Meanwhile also the bitbucket branch referenced in the threads no longer exists and I can't find the corresponding branches on github. What is the latest state of this work? Where are the latest patches? What are the remaining problems? I'm currently interested in a multilib toolchain 32/64 bit for Freescale e6500 processors. I ported one of Cody's patches to crosstool-ng 1.22.0 and the build advanced a bit further than with the 1.22.0 baseline, but now breaks at the 'pass-2 core C gcc compiler' step. Thanks, Thomas [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/crossgcc/2014-01/msg00054.html [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/crossgcc/2014-07/msg00014.htmlSee here: https://github.com/crosstool-ng/crosstool-ng/pull/383 Please test and review.Alexey, could you help out with this one?Interesting, thanks! I created a toolchain based on that PR with the following configuration: CT_PREFIX_DIR="${CT_TOP_DIR}/targets/${CT_TARGET}" CT_ARCH_CPU="e6500" CT_ARCH_64=y CT_ARCH_powerpc=y CT_MULTILIB=y CT_KERNEL_linux=y CT_KERNEL_V_3_18=y CT_BINUTILS_EXTRA_CONFIG_ARRAY="--enable-targets=powerpc-linux,powerpc64-linux" CT_CC_GCC_V_4_9_3=y CT_CC_GCC_CORE_EXTRA_CONFIG_ARRAY="--enable-targets=powerpc-linux,powerpc64-linux" CT_CC_GCC_EXTRA_CONFIG_ARRAY="--enable-targets=powerpc-linux,powerpc64-linux" CT_CC_GCC_MULTILIB_LIST="powerpc-linux,powerpc64-linux" CT_CC_LANG_CXX=y The idea is that 32-bit should be the default, without requiring additional options on the compiler command-line. When passing this toolchain to buildroot, applications seems to build fine in 32-bit (I did not try to run them yet). The kernel is also correctly built in 64-bit. However, there is something wrong for u-boot. I get errors like: /foo/output/host/usr/bin/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu-ld.bfd: Relocatable linking with relocations from format elf32-powerpc (arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/cpu.o) to format elf64-powerpc (arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/built-in.o) is not supported which indicates that the default format used by ld.bfd is 64-bit rather than 32-bit. If I manually replay this command-line with the additional -m elf32ppc, it seems to work correctly and a 32-bit builtin.o is created. What am I missing? Why is ld not taking 32-bit as default, while gcc is? (I did not post to the github PR because it may all be caused by a misconfiguration or misunderstanding on my part). Thanks, Thomas
-- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |