From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id B17D2E00947; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:40:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [193.201.172.118 listed in list.dnswl.org] * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (picmaster[at]mail.bg) * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from mx2.mail.bg (mx2.mail.bg [193.201.172.118]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39050E00758 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.62] (unknown [93.152.143.60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.mail.bg (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A5CF600107D; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 18:40:52 +0300 (EEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mail.bg; s=default; t=1434987652; bh=lLYEqTKgDOztxIaIl8ZpLhTGJe/ZvmYCEIzwIyHq8VM=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=swwdpdM2BQQ0UxmQ+ZWo6r5ruiJscHadkJLb6/vXgEvqQJwO2v2zgxLnifwwmF+LP w3agBxF5mKdRbfJfrFomnihZgx0JIK1uJfvz9XnJM570xmLpLu+/sbECtfhXU+gpYE NWcLo+5F5oRfx1oRp7xdDdAtsDNmlVkUBay94OcU= Message-ID: <55882C84.3000507@mail.bg> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 18:40:52 +0300 From: Nikolay Dimitrov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?R3nDtnJneSBLw7Z2ZXNkaQ==?= , meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org References: <20150621183207.0f614fb8@kgy-pc.lan> <5587C667.10701@teledigit.eu> <5587EEB0.50008@teledigit.eu> <5587F29A.6080909@mail.bg> <55881DD4.2030703@teledigit.eu> In-Reply-To: <55881DD4.2030703@teledigit.eu> Subject: Re: Error compiling barebox on fido X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:40:56 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi György, On 06/22/2015 05:38 PM, György Kövesdi wrote: > Hi Nikolay, > > I found something. As you suggested, i created a small test recipe. > It was succeeded on master and fido checkouts too. I found that it > uses gcc this way: > > arm-poky-linux-gnueabi-gcc -march=armv7-a -marm -mthumb-interwork > -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=neon -mtune=cortex-a9 > --sysroot=/home/kgy/work/Yocto/MX6-master/build/tmp/sysroots/embedsky-e9 > > -O2 -pipe -g -feliminate-unused-debug-types -Wl,-O1 > -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--as-needed x.c -o x > > The first some options passed to gcc fixes my problem: > > -march=armv7-a -marm -mthumb-interwork -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=neon > -mtune=cortex-a9 > --sysroot=/home/kgy/work/Yocto/MX6-master/build/tmp/sysroots/embedsky-e9 > > >and the others are come from CFLAGS and LDFLAGS variables. If i > could pass these to barebox compilation, then i could fix it. My > problem is that i could not find the variable where these options > are stored. I would recommend you not to try to force the Yocto build system to work-around component quirks, but to try to fix the component makefile to work properly in a cross-compile environment. Assuming that barebox and U-Boot have somewhat similar build scripts, it should be to see how things work in U-Boot and do it the same way for barebox (U-Boot builds *perfectly* in every environment I had so far, including native armhf builds). The other thing I could recommend is to re-evaluate your motivation to build barebox and to try instead using U-Boot for the same purpose (unless barebox is a hard-requirement for your project). If you feel like learning more about Makefiles makes you happy - that's cool, but if you're hard pressed against a wall (e.g. deadlines) you should look at lower risk solution. [snip] Regards, Nikolay