From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bugzilla at busybox.net Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 22:35:16 +0000 Subject: [Buildroot] [Bug 11166] Erlang bad argument on valid uint64 when crosscompiled on 64-bit host In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=11166 --- Comment #2 from Frank Vasquez --- Thank you for your prompt reply, Frank. I was away on vacation and am just getting back to this now. > I assume bitcask was cross-compiled outside of Buildroot, right? Yes and no. Our application is being built using rebar3 as opposed to Buildroot's built-in rebar-package support. Our package .mk file looks like this. define BEAMCOIN_BUILD_CMDS $(MAKE) $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) -C $(@D) compile \ PATH='$(BR2_EXTERNAL_HELIUM_PATH)/output/host/lib/erlang/bin:$(PATH)' \ CPATH='$(BR2_EXTERNAL_HELIUM_PATH)/output/target/usr/lib/erlang/usr/include:$(CPATH)' \ LDFLAGS='-L$(BR2_EXTERNAL_HELIUM_PATH)/output/build/erlang-20.0/lib/erl_interface/obj/arm-buildroot-linux-gnueabihf -fPIC -shared' endef $(eval $(generic-package)) And the underlying Makefile looks like this. REBAR=./rebar3 compile: $(REBAR) compile You can see from FOOBAR_BUILD_CMDS that I set PATH, CPATH and LDFLAGS so that the NIFs cross-compile correctly. Don't know if I am going about that the right way. At least the NIFs appear to build fine on x86 32-bit hosts. My team is doing bleeding edge blockchain work in Erlang (much of it already open source) so they really want to use rebar3. > Is it possible to reproduce this with a small Erlang application? I believe so. I will try to assemble a small repro using just rebar3 and bitcask. Cheers, Frank -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.