On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 03:59:27PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > On 30/04/17 06:29, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi, > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:14:16PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > >> It seems that many people (even outside the Linux kernel community) use > >> the cross compilers provided at kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool. > >> The latest compiler I find there is 4.9.0, which celebrated its third > >> birthday at the weekend, also has been superseded by 4.9.4 meanwhile. > >> > >> So I took Segher's buildall scripts from [1] and threw binutils 2.28 and > >> GCC 6.3.0 at them. > > > > Happy to see people are still using these! > > > >> After removing --enable-sjlj-exceptions from build-gcc > > > > This was needed to build some targets. It does prevent aarch64 from > > building without patch. > > I saw you fixing that in your repo, thanks for that! > > >> and adding --disable-multilib (for building x86-64 on a x86-64 > >> box without 32-bit libs) > > > > Why is this needed? What error are you seeing. > > It was something along the lines of not finding 32-bit compat libraries > (which I don't have on that build machine): > ------------------------ > configure: error: I suspect your system does not have 32-bit development > libraries (libc and headers). If you have them, rerun configure with > --enable-multilib. If you do not have them, and want to build a > 64-bit-only compiler, rerun configure with --disable-multilib. > ------------------------ > > I don't think we need multilib for a kernel build, also we have an i386 > compiler for 32-bit kernels. So adding this flags allows x86_64 to be > build on pure 64-bit systems. > > >> I was able to build (bare-metal) toolchains for > >> all architectures except arc, m68k, tilegx and tilepro. > > > > arc needs a more recent GCC; the other probably as well. GCC 7 should > > be out very soon, you probably want to wait for that :-) > > Well, GCC 7 indeed builds better, but then again is a very new compiler. > For instance in the moment it spits a lot of warnings when compiling the > kernel (mostly due to some *printf analysis). It's not hard to fix, but > this will take a while to trickle in and it's questionable whether this > will be backported everywhere. > So in addition to GCC 7.1 I'd like to have at least GCC 6.3 around, > which builds kernels without warnings today. > > For GCC 6.3 (and probably before) arc was breaking because missing a > (default) CPU type. Adding "--with-cpu=arc700" to EXTRA_GCC_CONF fixed > that, but GCC 7 indeed builds fine, even without it. > I was wondering if we could have that flags added to the new > TARGET_GCC_CONF variable for arc-elf, to cover pre GCC 7 compilers. >
I think arcv2 requires gcc 7. > >> $ ./buildall --toolchain > >> $ PATH=$PATH:/opt/cross/bin > >> $ ./buildall --kernel > > > > You should have the target dir in your PATH before doing anything else. > > Is this not documented? Hrm I guess not, let me fix that. > > > >> And what is a good build setup, so that the binaries run on as many > >> systems as possible? > > > > Run contrib/download_prerequisites in the gcc source dir: this will > > make GMP, MPFR, MPC statically linked, and use a version of each that > > is known to work (and work correctly). > > Ah, that's a good hint! Thanks, that solves a lot of problems. > > Also I removed documentation (share/ directory, which won't be in > MANPATH mostly anyway) from the tarball and stripped the (host) binaries > to get the tarball size down (to about 16 MB per arch) > > I built both toolchains and kernels for almost all 31 supported > architectures. Some kernel builds fails (sparc, sparc64, arc), but not Are those missing libgcc ? If so, I think it is a toolchain issue. I solved it by adding all-target-libgcc / install-target-libgcc to the build (and installing the kernel headers where needed, ie for m68k and tilegx/tilepro). > So while I have now 31 GCC 7.1.0 tarballs, pushing those binaries to > due to toolchain issues, as it seems. Only sh4 complains: > sh4-linux-gcc: error: command line option '-m4-nofpu' is not supported What configuration are you trying to build, and how does your make command line look like (wondering, because I don't see the problem) ? > by this configuration. > some public webspace raises some legal eyebrows here, so I was wondering > if someone (probably with less affiliation to a hardware (arch) vendor) > could build, package and upload them? I am happy to assist with that > process. > How do you create the per-target tarballs ? The script in the repository pushes eherything into a single target directory. Thanks, Guenter
