On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 08:46:14AM +0800, Sune Brian wrote: > Tom Rini <[email protected]> 於 2025年11月29日週六 上午12:50寫道： > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 06:44:12PM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 at 17:31, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 10:11:53AM +0800, Yuslaimi, Alif Zakuan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27/11/2025 11:09 pm, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > [CAUTION: This email is from outside your organization. Unless you > > > > > > trust > > > > > > the sender, do not click on links or open attachments as it may be a > > > > > > fraudulent email attempting to steal your information and/or > > > > > > compromise > > > > > > your computer.] > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/27/25 3:12 AM, Yuslaimi, Alif Zakuan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > I already have the referenced commit in my test branch, and I can > > > > > > > confirm that the same compilation error still appears on CycloneV > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > certain directories produce no SPL objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The existing fix ensures that built-in.o is always present, but > > > > > > > it does > > > > > > > not prevent ar from generating empty built-in.a archives, which > > > > > > > older > > > > > > > ARM 32-bit linkers (such as CycloneV toolchains) reject as “file > > > > > > > truncated”. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which toolchain is this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am using Linaro arm-linux-gnueabihf GCC 7.5.0 to compile our SoC32 > > > > > devices > > > > > - CycloneV and Arria10 > > > > > > > > Ilias, do you recall the solution to this problem from when it came up > > > > on IRC a few weeks ago? > > > > > > Nop unfortunately not. > > > Was this caused by the Kbuild bump? I remember the logic around > > > builtin changing significantly. > > > > Yes, and I kinda thought we narrowed it down to something being missing > > from the update, since the kernel does support this old of a toolchain > > (or at least the 10.x? someone else this on). > > Hi Tom, > > Actually I am not sure u-boot itself have minimum requirement on each tag > or branch listed?
We do not currently have a test for anything other than "newer than gcc-6" for ARM, but should have the same minimum requirements as the linux kernel, but are lacking enforcement checks (but I also think the kernel is?). -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
