From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Ceresoli Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 23:32:12 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Autobuilder news In-Reply-To: <20140504223611.5a6177c1@skate> References: <20140504223611.5a6177c1@skate> Message-ID: <5366B1DC.4020604@lucaceresoli.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, Yann, Arnout, all, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > Two news about the autobuilders: > > * The Crosstool-NG external toolchain configurations have been updated > and slightly extended. Yann E. Morin has provided me with a good set > of more up-to-date toolchains generated by Crosstool-NG, and I've > added them to the Free Electrons autobuilders, as a replacement for > the old ones. The new configurations are: > > http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv5-ctng-linux-gnueabi.config > http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv6-ctng-linux-uclibcgnueabi.config > http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv7-ctng-linux-gnueabihf.config With reference to the discussion I started a couple of weeks ago [1], there is now a non-Linaro external EABIhf toolchain on the autobuilders. I checked it and it does not seem to produce the same problem I met, because it ships ld-linux-armhf.so.3, not ld-linux.so.3, but I don't think it is a multilib toolchain, is it? Is it a habit in modern EABIhf toolchains to name the dynamic linker ld-linux-armhf instead of ld-linux. This would explain why I have a problem that nobody else seems to have here. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.uclibc.buildroot/82456/focus=82471 -- Luca