Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/arm-gnu-a-toolchain: bump to version 10.3-2021.07

From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
Cc: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>, buildroot@buildroot.org
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/arm-gnu-a-toolchain: bump to version 10.3-2021.07
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 21:55:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210923215517.1c2bd3f8@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ad51da8c-2b94-3969-b26c-2d8b168d198b@mind.be>

Hello Arnout,

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:52:29 +0200
Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:

> > I think there's more than that, there is a c_nano library integrated in
> > this toolchain. I'm not sure what it is, but the Cortex-M4 code we're
> > building links against that library (I haven't investigated further for
> > now).  
> 
>   Obviously, I can't comment on some mysterious out-of-tree package you have...

It's not that mysterious in fact, we are building the examples provided
by ST for the Cortex-M4 included in their STM32MP157. I would ideally
like this package to be submitted to upstream Buildroot, but it has
some not so nice aspects: these examples are implemented using some
fancy IDE, which saves some "project files", and you can only build the
examples using the IDE. The Yocto packaging, which we have replicated
in our Buildroot packaging, consists in a Makefile + some scripting
that parses those "project files" to generate the final Makefiles to
build those examples without the damn IDE.

Yeah, not great :-/

>   If that package (which I guess will eventually be upstreamed) links with 
> anything that is part of the toolchain, that's still fine as long as there's no 
> other package (i.e. ATF) links with it (and expects a different target 
> architecture).

As you can see from above, it won't link with any other thing: it's
bare-metal code for a Cortex-M4 micro-controller.

>   However, if the intention is to use the toolchain for a Cortex-M and you need 
> any of its libraries, it's probably a lot cleaner to simply have a separate 
> arm-gnu-a-toolchain and arm-gnu-rm-toolchain. It's definitely a bit weird to 
> have a package "arm-gnu-a-toolchain" that actually uses the -rm one...

Yes, I agree that we should probably add a arm-gnu-rm-toolchain package
side-by-side with the arm-gnu-a-toolchain. Köry: something for you to
look at, perhaps? :-)

Best regards,

Thomas Petazzoni
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@lists.buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot