From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernhard Fischer Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:01:31 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] ARM EABI builds In-Reply-To: <002a01c7b9be$22a79000$7100a8c0@SDW> References: <002a01c7b9be$22a79000$7100a8c0@SDW> Message-ID: <20070628230131.GJ4096@aon.at> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 03:54:22PM -0400, Stuart Wood wrote: >Just a note on what Tom said about user land application. I've already Just as a note on what everybody seems to say about configuring GCC: It is very amusing that you guys seem to be excited about _not_ setting a config option -- CONFIG_BR2_EXTRA_TARGET_GCC_CONFIG_OPTIONS -- which is specifically exported to you, to spell out specific requirements put upon gcc (other toolchain parts of course also provide said means for hand-crafted options, mind you). >found that I had to add -march=armv4t to properly build my application, Just doh! >because gcc was not using the right load register code for the data well, if you don't tell it to do and _do not help in improving the generic situation_ how should we guess what you are trying to achieve? Get real. (yes, i'm in a bad mood and i'm fond of stupid whining about 'Doctor, it hurts when i..' Q: Dear X-mas whatever. I want this and that. Now. Immediately. No, i have no idea how to implement 'this' 'now', but it has to be done. What? Nah, no idea what 'this' nor 'that' nor 'now' is supposed to do, i'd have provided a guidance otherwise. A: alright. At your service. >size I wanted to read. It would use ldrw instead of ldrh. So, It would >help avoid those errors. Try searching the archives for CPU selection (from memory, so may not be accurate) for further details. > >Stuart See below. > >Tom wrote: >> >> I did think about adding -mcpu= to the build CFLAGS, but that is >> not going to help with the problem that libgcc is not going to be >> compiled correctly. >> >Why not? The kernel image, built with the same "incorrect" toolchain, >must have used only ARMv4 instructions. If it hadn't, I would have never >gotten far enough to even execute vprintf, libc. I would suspect that >the kernel does a better job of setting -mcpu, -mtune. Thus these >options should work for libc too. What makes you think that it wouldn't >work for libc, have you tried? (PS: Even if it did, bug #1406 is >probably the better fix, in particular as buildroot users might use its bug #1406 is completely crap. Let me cite: Reporter bjdooks Summary 0001403: printf and anything using vfprintf() hangs system Description Any function using vfprintf, such as printf and snprintf cause the system to stop. A test program shows that stdout is functional, as fwrite() to stdout will display messages on the console Additional Information uclibc 0.9.29 gcc 4.1.2 (arm-linux-uclibcgnueabi) binutils 2.17.50.0.16 configure for ARM920T, EABI --- (0002514) bjdooks 06-25-07 17:26 The bug is still present in the development snapshot --- (0002517) bjdooks 06-26-07 05:03 Building gcc 4.1.2 for OABI (patches will be sent in seperate report) does not work either. >toolchain to build their own code w/o always setting these options) - No actual error shown. - no code/arch/toolchain hints to reproduce. This is one of the 'Doctor, it hurts'.. goto above;