From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pedro Sanchez Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:36:18 -0400 Subject: [Buildroot] Python standard library problems In-Reply-To: <4E5BB725.9030408@free-electrons.com> References: <4E42D99C.7080806@fosstel.com> <4E42FCAB.2070609@in-2-technology.co.uk> <4E43D5B4.2090106@fosstel.com> <4E43F72C.4060005@in-2-technology.co.uk> <4E441E25.4010600@fosstel.com> <4E444173.3090509@fosstel.com> <4E44FA0A.1000902@free-electrons.com> <4E454A63.6030401@free-electrons.com> <4E45673C.4010903@fosstel.com> <4E4A28C1.1070509@free-electrons.com> <4E5BB725.9030408@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <4E5CF562.6070800@fosstel.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Thanks for the patch. I think it's been tested since I see it's committed already. But I'll give a try anyway and will let you know. Thanks!, -- Pedro On 08/29/2011 11:58 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > I've just sent a patch for this issue, could you test it ? > > Maxime > > On 16/08/2011 10:22, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 12/08/2011 19:47, Pedro Sanchez wrote: >>> Thanks Maxime for looking at this. Indeed, my workstation is running >>> Linux 64 bits. I'm glad to know that cross-compiling Python goes well on >>> a 32-bit OS. I'll have to fire up a VM just to run BR :-| >> >> Or maybe we can just fix this bug :) >> >>> On the specific problem we have, I don't have any insight yet. All I can >>> tell you is that I did the exercise of building BR w/Python using three >>> different toolchains (CodeSourcery, Crosstool-ng, and uClibC) and I got >>> exactly the same disappointing results**. >> >> Neither am I. I don't get why a cross-toolchain which runs fine could >> fail to build a specific module. After all, on 32 and 64 bits, we use >> the exact same toolchains (at least for the Code Sourcery one.). >> >> After all, the host-python should be compiled for 64 bits using the >> native toolchain, and the target one compiled (in our case at least) for >> 32 bits, with the cross-toolchain. There shouldn't be any 64-to-32 bits >> compilation at all. >> >>> Maybe this can help? >>> >>> http://blog.devork.be/2009/02/compiling-32-bit-python-on-amd64.html >> >> Yep, I ran into that trick last week too. I'm not sure this is a good >> one though. This is a good quick fix, but I wonder what will happen if >> your target is a 64bits architecture ? Moreover, this adds the >> dependency to gcc-multilib. >> >> Peter, what do you think of it ? >> >> Maxime >> > > -- Pedro