On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:43:29 +0000 Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:26:12PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > On Di, 2016-01-26 at 12:20 +0100, Marc Marí wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:11:54 +0000 > > > Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:17:48PM +0100, Marc Marí wrote: > > > > > +linuxboot_dma.img: linuxboot_dma.o > > > > > + $(call quiet-command,$(LD) $(LDFLAGS_NOPIE) -m > > > > > elf_i386 -Ttext 0 -e _start -s -o $@ $<," Building > > > > > $(TARGET_DIR)$@") + %.img: %.o > > > > > $(call quiet-command,$(LD) $(LDFLAGS_NOPIE) -Ttext 0 > > > > > -e _start -s -o $@ $<," Building $(TARGET_DIR)$@") > > > > > > > > Why is -m elf_i386 necessary for linuxboot_dma.img but not for > > > > the other *.img files? > > > > > > I cannot give a precise explanation. But if I don't force an > > > output type, I get this error: > > > > > > Building optionrom/linuxboot_dma.img > > > ld: i386 architecture of input file `linuxboot_dma.o' is > > > incompatible with i386:x86-64 output > > > > Any chance the linker needs -m32 too? > > I wonder why this isn't a problem for the existing firmware code. Are > we really building x86_64 ELF files for our firmware? Yes they are x86_64: pc-bios/optionrom/linuxboot.img: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, stripped But as they are written directly in assembly, it does not give any problem. Whereas when mixing C and ASM, it does give problems. Marc
