From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eumx.net (eumx.net [91.82.101.43]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB92E0045D for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36516 helo=eumx.net) by eumx.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TO7Zg-0005m6-Uo; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:52:49 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=eumx.net; h=message-id :date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=8hrkXg8pxLxxr8h9YdwG17RANxg=; b=DJknfyOgNdDaWpBfIk+aFjH6EN7w ww4grLJvliYGAR0pWpNceFL6faQBOQZ0ZECIUOeUgPMDHQ2KSe8TpcBVauwa/Tr0 TmWiHSpMJ9KOfASWA1Gndd1n5aK4MAGp3UHri1lT9TJzNrXXhirZ5oZA7AtPeWlk yl+hI1Rx39ocF2o= Received: from [195.171.99.130] (port=36415 helo=[192.168.0.75]) by eumx.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TO7Zg-0005m3-SY; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:52:48 +0000 Message-ID: <507D6720.2010205@communistcode.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:54:40 +0100 From: Jack Mitchell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121012 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Denys Dmytriyenko References: <507C1073.3060703@communistcode.co.uk> <507D1961.7080907@communistcode.co.uk> <20121016130010.GA5662@denix.org> <507D5E1E.8070207@communistcode.co.uk> <20121016133721.GB5662@denix.org> In-Reply-To: <20121016133721.GB5662@denix.org> Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: u-boot compile failure X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: ml@communistcode.co.uk List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:52:50 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 16/10/12 14:37, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:16:14PM +0100, Jack Mitchell wrote: >> On 16/10/12 14:00, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Jack Mitchell wrote: >>>> On 16/10/12 02:20, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Jack Mitchell wrote: >>>>>> It seems that u-boot is attempting to use GCC includes from my host system >>>>>> here. This surely isn't right is it? >>>>> There are host tools to build. That said, from the log it looks like >>>>> you have been trying to build this a few times. If you bitbake -c >>>>> clean u-boot do you still see the problem? >>>>> >>>> I get the error[1] after the -c clean. >>>> >>>> I think I know what it is, that I upgraded my host distro yesterday >>>> which pulled in a new GCC and the old GCC libraries are still in the >>>> path. However, bitbake shouldn't be going into the host system for >>>> includes should it? Shouldn't it use it's own compiled GCC and >>>> associated libraries to generate the u-boot tools rather than rely >>>> on whatever is present on my host system, or am I missing something? >>>> I'm pretty sure a reboot would sort it out but I didn't want to kill >>>> a failure case. >>> Jack, >>> >>> It's not u-boot that fails for you, it's u-boot-mkimage-native - it's a host >>> tool to generate u-boot images, so it runs on your host and hence is built >>> with your host compiler. OE/Yocto usually builds bunch of host tools and they >>> have the "-native" suffix in their names. Upgradig your host system w/o >>> switching profiles or changing paths is a common issue in such cases. >>> >> Ok, so when a package is labelled -native it is not only native in >> architecture but linked to the specific host? > Yes, because that code is used locally on the same host and only for the > build. You don't ship that code, as it doesn't even get packaged anywhere - > it gets populated in the sysroots and used for the builds. > > For something that you need to distribute/ship, that needs to run on a host, > there's SDK with Canadian cross, where you get a complete separation and host > binaries that are not linked to a specific host. Moreover, you can target > 32bit x86 SDK host, while building it on a 64bit-only x86 build host. Those > are marked with "-nativesdk" suffix instead. Bingo, that answered every question I had lingering - even including the one about building different native for different architectures that I resisted asking! ;) Thanks Denys - I'll get there eventually! > >> This is just out of interest since I was unaware of the level of >> host intrusion on a build. -- Jack Mitchell (jack@embed.me.uk) Embedded Systems Engineer http://www.embed.me.uk --