Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > >> Hi Theodoros, >> >> Theodoros Foradis <theodoros....@openmailbox.org> skribis: >> >>> The original patch series was working correctly and producing working >>> binaries. Some >>> flags (that I had been using with 6.2.0) are missing from that version of >>> GCC 4.9, >>> so I added 6.2.0 as an extra option. I have tested it to produce working >>> binaries. >>> >>> Here are some modifications to Ricardo's patches for the arm-none-eabi >>> bare metal cross compiler. The following changes have been made: >>> >>> - I have modified xbinutils to use binutils 2.25.1 from cross-base, as it >>> compiles >>> correctly with it. The version from the svn commit that was used by Ricardo >>> is compiling >>> correct binaries as well. Thus, if it is deemed appropriate, the source for >>> xbinutils can >>> be swapped for the previous one, with (seemingly) no difference. >>> >>> - The xgcc of the original, was failing to find the headers that newlib >>> provided. >>> I have set the native-cross-paths as a workaround. Not sure if there is a >>> better >>> alternative, or if the failure was my mistake. >>> >>> - A package for cross GCC 6.2.0 is added, with appropriate patches for >>> multilib >>> support. >>> >>> - Newlib-arm-none-eabi and newlib-nano-arm-none-eabi have been changed to >>> procedures, taking an xgcc as argument, so as to facilitate building with >>> either version of gcc. >>> >>> - An arm-none-eabi-toolchain procedure is declared, to create toolchain >>> packages >>> for both gcc and newlib version. The four toolchain variables follow. Not >>> sure >>> if it's a mistake to include "nano" in the toolchain version. >> >> This all sounds reasonable to me. Ricardo was interested in using this >> toolchain for one specific purpose, so maybe we’ll want to check that it >> also works here. Ricardo: could you comment? > > The changes seem reasonable. I wasn’t happy with using fixed SVN > revisions in my patches, so I’m glad that this can be avoided. > > I haven’t yet found the time to apply the proposed changes, build the > toolchain and try it with the Axoloti board. I hope I’ll be able try on > Sunday to first address your comments, Ludo. Then I’ll check the > suggested changes made by Theodoros (e.g. using different binutils and > doing without SVN). > > Theodoros, I see that your patch set includes some of my patches as > well. The only changes I can see is the addition of the native search > paths and parameterising newlib with xgcc, both of which I’ll add. > After applying my modified patches I would apply your patches that add > “arm-none-eabi-gcc-6” and the “arm-none-eabi-toolchain”. > > Is this acceptable? > > ~~ Ricardo
Yes, actually I did apply my patches on top of yours. It is perfectly acceptable, with either version of binutils. Regards, -- Theodoros Foradis
