i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs.  But the build fails
with:

$ make ARCH=x86_64
  [...]
  CC      init/initramfs.o
  CC      init/calibrate.o
  LD      init/built-in.o
  CHK     usr/initramfs_list
  CC      arch/x86_64/kernel/process.o
  CC      arch/x86_64/kernel/signal.o
  AS      arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.o
arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S: Assembler messages:
arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:204: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_X86_64_32S
arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:275: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_X86_64_32S
arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:762: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_X86_64_32S
arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:815: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_X86_64_32S
arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:536: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_64
arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:536: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_64
arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:785: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_64
arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:785: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_64
make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.o] Error 1
make: *** [arch/x86_64/kernel] Error 2

Is this a known toolchain bug?

$ as --version
GNU assembler 2.16.1 Debian GNU/Linux

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Ken Moffat]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=X-UNKNOWN; FORMAT=flowed, Size: 1048 bytes --]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Lee Revell wrote:

> I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
> I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs.  But the build fails
> with:
>
> $ make ARCH=x86_64
>  [...]
>  CC      init/initramfs.o
>  CC      init/calibrate.o
>  LD      init/built-in.o
>  CHK     usr/initramfs_list
>  CC      arch/x86_64/kernel/process.o
>  CC      arch/x86_64/kernel/signal.o
>  AS      arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.o
> arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S: Assembler messages:
> arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:204: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_X86_64_32S

  Unless ubuntu provides a biarch toolchain (and the fact gcc accepts 
'-m64' means nothing - use 'file' on init/built-in.o), you have to build 
a cross toolchain, (just binutils and gcc), put that on your path, and 
use

make ARCH=x86_64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-

  so that the build will use x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as and friends.  You 
should not need to mess with the CFLAGS.

Ken
-- 
  das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 19:50 +0000, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> 
> > I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
> > I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs.  But the build fails
> > with:
> >
> > $ make ARCH=x86_64
> >  [...]
> >  CC      init/initramfs.o
> >  CC      init/calibrate.o
> >  LD      init/built-in.o
> >  CHK     usr/initramfs_list
> >  CC      arch/x86_64/kernel/process.o
> >  CC      arch/x86_64/kernel/signal.o
> >  AS      arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.o
> > arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S: Assembler messages:
> > arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:204: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_X86_64_32S
> 
>   Unless ubuntu provides a biarch toolchain (and the fact gcc accepts 
> '-m64' means nothing - use 'file' on init/built-in.o), you have to build 
> a cross toolchain, (just binutils and gcc), put that on your path, and 
> use
> 
> make ARCH=x86_64 CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-
> 
>   so that the build will use x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as and friends.  You 
> should not need to mess with the CFLAGS.
> 

$ file init/built-in.o 
init/built-in.o: ELF 64-bit LSB relocatable, AMD x86-64, version 1
(SYSV), not stripped

>From man gcc, i386 section:

-m32
-m64
    Generate code for a 32-bit or 64-bit environment.  The 32-bit 
    environment sets int, long and pointer to 32
    bits and generates code that runs on any i386 system.  The 
    64-bit environment sets int to 32 bits and long
    and pointer to 64 bits and generates code for AMD's x86-64 
    architecture.

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Ken Moffat]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed, Size: 1029 bytes --]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Lee Revell wrote:

>
> $ file init/built-in.o
> init/built-in.o: ELF 64-bit LSB relocatable, AMD x86-64, version 1
> (SYSV), not stripped
>
>> From man gcc, i386 section:
>
> -m32
> -m64
>    Generate code for a 32-bit or 64-bit environment.  The 32-bit
>    environment sets int, long and pointer to 32
>    bits and generates code that runs on any i386 system.  The
>    64-bit environment sets int to 32 bits and long
>    and pointer to 64 bits and generates code for AMD's x86-64
>    architecture.
>
> Lee
>

  Yes, file shows your gcc does indeed do the right thing with -m64, and 
thank you, but I was already familiar with -m64 (to say nothing of 
passing LDEMULATION to userspace compilations [info binutils, if you 
need to know]).

  So, do you have some sort of religious objection to using 
CROSS_COMPILE= when building for a processor that doesn't match the 
userspace ?  And I repeat, messing with CFLAGS should NOT be necessary.

Ken
-- 
  das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 21:30 +0000, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> 
> >
> > $ file init/built-in.o
> > init/built-in.o: ELF 64-bit LSB relocatable, AMD x86-64, version 1
> > (SYSV), not stripped
> >
> >> From man gcc, i386 section:
> >
> > -m32
> > -m64
> >    Generate code for a 32-bit or 64-bit environment.  The 32-bit
> >    environment sets int, long and pointer to 32
> >    bits and generates code that runs on any i386 system.  The
> >    64-bit environment sets int to 32 bits and long
> >    and pointer to 64 bits and generates code for AMD's x86-64
> >    architecture.
> >
> > Lee
> >
> 
>   Yes, file shows your gcc does indeed do the right thing with -m64, and 
> thank you, but I was already familiar with -m64 (to say nothing of 
> passing LDEMULATION to userspace compilations [info binutils, if you 
> need to know]).
> 
>   So, do you have some sort of religious objection to using 
> CROSS_COMPILE= when building for a processor that doesn't match the 
> userspace ?  And I repeat, messing with CFLAGS should NOT be necessary.

It seems like CROSS_COMPILE= should not be needed if my standard gcc
binary can produce x86-64 code.  I was hoping it would be possible to
build an x86-64 kernel using the Ubuntu packages and that I would not
have to resort to building my own toolchain.  And it seems that it's
supposed to work, but doesn't.

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Ken Moffat]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed, Size: 690 bytes --]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Lee Revell wrote:

>
> It seems like CROSS_COMPILE= should not be needed if my standard gcc
> binary can produce x86-64 code.  I was hoping it would be possible to
> build an x86-64 kernel using the Ubuntu packages and that I would not
> have to resort to building my own toolchain.  And it seems that it's
> supposed to work, but doesn't.
>
  Last time I used it, crosstool was painless, but I guess you'd prefer 
this link to x86 cross-compilers that akpm posted the other month: 
http://developer.osdl.org/dev/plm/cross_compile/

(I haven't tried the x86_64 version there, but the powerpc64 worked a 
treat).

-- 
  das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Kyle McMartin]

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 01:50:08PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
> I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs.  But the build fails
> with:
> 
> $ make ARCH=x86_64
> arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:785: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_64

Ubuntu/Debian provide a biarch gcc, but do not (did not?) provide a biarch
assembler. Building binutils for target x86_64-pc-linux-gnu should help.

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 14:58 -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 01:50:08PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
> > I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs.  But the build fails
> > with:
> > 
> > $ make ARCH=x86_64
> > arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S:785: Error: cannot represent relocation type BFD_RELOC_64
> 
> Ubuntu/Debian provide a biarch gcc, but do not (did not?) provide a biarch
> assembler. Building binutils for target x86_64-pc-linux-gnu should help.
> 

I thought that might be the problem so I installed an x86-64 binutils
from:

http://debian.speedblue.org

I tried with CROSS_COMPILE="/usr/x86_64/bin/x86_64-linux-", but edited
the Makefile to set CC to /use/bin/gcc.  Same error.

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Kyle McMartin]

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 03:21:16PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> I tried with CROSS_COMPILE="/usr/x86_64/bin/x86_64-linux-", but edited
> the Makefile to set CC to /use/bin/gcc.  Same error.
>

Ah. I didn't realize when it says "AS foo.o" it really means it's running
CC, not AS. (I had also built a cross compiling gcc, but didn't realize it
was being used). 

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 15:41 -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 03:21:16PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > I tried with CROSS_COMPILE="/usr/x86_64/bin/x86_64-linux-", but edited
> > the Makefile to set CC to /use/bin/gcc.  Same error.
> >
> 
> Ah. I didn't realize when it says "AS foo.o" it really means it's running
> CC, not AS. (I had also built a cross compiling gcc, but didn't realize it
> was being used). 
> 

Yes, I noticed that, when I set KBUILD_VERBOSE, I can see that it just
invokes CC and passes -D__ASSEMBLY__.

So what is setting AS in the Makefile good for then?  And how can I
force the build process to use /usr/x86_64/bin/x86_64-linux-as rather
than /usr/bin/as?

Also, isn't it a bug for the Makefile not to pass -m64 if I specify
ARCH=x86_64?  If I don't change the CFLAGS I get:

$ make ARCH=x86_64                              
  CHK     include/linux/version.h
  CC      arch/x86_64/kernel/asm-offsets.s
arch/x86_64/kernel/asm-offsets.c:1: error: code model 'kernel' not
supported in the 32 bit mode
make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1
make: *** [prepare0] Error 2

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 15:58 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> Also, isn't it a bug for the Makefile not to pass -m64 if I specify
> ARCH=x86_64?  If I don't change the CFLAGS I get:
> 
> $ make ARCH=x86_64                              
>   CHK     include/linux/version.h
>   CC      arch/x86_64/kernel/asm-offsets.s
> arch/x86_64/kernel/asm-offsets.c:1: error: code model 'kernel' not
> supported in the 32 bit mode
> make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1
> make: *** [prepare0] Error 2

Lee,

For my x86_64, I gave up on trying to do it through the normal path
(having a plain debian unstable system), and finally just downloaded the
gcc toolchain (gcc, binutils, and glibc) and built them as cross
compilers with the prefix x86_64-linux-

For binutils I made a directory binutils_x86_64 and in there I used:

../binutils-2.16/configure  --prefix=/usr/local/x86_64 --target=x86_64-linux

For gcc (first pass) I used:

../gcc-4.0.2/configure   --prefix=/usr/local/x86_64 --target=x86_64-linux \
--enable-shared --disable-threads --enable-languages=c

That's enough to get a gcc that builds the kernel.

Then I built glibc, and then once again the gcc with:

../gcc-4.0.2/configure   --prefix=/usr/local/x86_64 --target=x86_64-linux \
--enable-shared --with-headers=/usr/local/x86_64/include \
--with-libs=/usr/local/x86_64/lib --disable-multilib \
--enable-languages=c

Probably not the best way, but it worked for me ;-)

Now I also installed a hack make program in /usr/local/bin that is used first:

---
#!/bin/sh

if [ ! -z $__MY_MAKE_RUNNING__ ]; then
        /usr/bin/make $*
        exit $?
fi

__MY_MAKE_RUNNING__=1
export __MY_MAKE_RUNNING__

pwd=`pwd | sed -ne '/\/home\/rostedt\/work\/kernels\//p'`

if [ -z $pwd ]; then
        m="intmake"
else
        m="amdmake"
fi

# prove to me that I'm running the right one
echo $m
$m $*
---

with amdmake in /usr/local/bin:
---
PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/x86_64/bin/ make CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux- ARCH=x86_64 $*
---


and intmake also in /usr/local/bin:
---
make ARCH=i386 $*
---


So now all the kernels in my /home/rostedt/work/kernels are built with
the cross compiling x86_64 and all other kernels for intel i386.  I know
this is a major hack, but I don't have time to pretty this up!

-- Steve

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 16:25 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> For my x86_64, I gave up on trying to do it through the normal path
> (having a plain debian unstable system), and finally just downloaded
> the gcc toolchain (gcc, binutils, and glibc) and built them as cross
> compilers with the prefix x86_64-linux-
> 

I was trying to avoid that, as the gcc-4.0-x86-64 package has an
unfortunate dependency on a 70MB glibc-cross-x86-64 package which I
almost certainly don't really need to compile the kernel.

So I guess this is a bug in the Ubuntu 5.10 gcc, I'll report it as such.

Thanks,

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 15:41 -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 03:21:16PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > I tried with CROSS_COMPILE="/usr/x86_64/bin/x86_64-linux-", but edited
> > the Makefile to set CC to /use/bin/gcc.  Same error.
> >
> 
> Ah. I didn't realize when it says "AS foo.o" it really means it's running
> CC, not AS. (I had also built a cross compiling gcc, but didn't realize it
> was being used). 

The problem does not seem to be lack of x86-64 support in the assembler.
I symlinked /usr/bin/as to /usr/x86_64/bin/x86_64-linux-as and got the
exact same relocation error.

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Kyle McMartin]

> The problem does not seem to be lack of x86-64 support in the assembler.
> I symlinked /usr/bin/as to /usr/x86_64/bin/x86_64-linux-as and got the
> exact same relocation error.
>

The problem appears to be that your GCC doesn't have support for these
relocations, not AS.
 

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Jeffrey Hundstad]

Lee Revell wrote:

>I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
>I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs.  But the build fails
>with:
>
>$ make ARCH=x86_64
>  [...]
>  CC      init/initramfs.o
> 
>

I have successfully done this using Debian/Sid.

1. I changed the linux/Makefile:
ARCH            ?= x86_64
CROSS_COMPILE   ?= x86_x64-linux-

2. The I changed the path to include the following /tmp/lin64/ directory:
PATH=/tmp/lin64:$PATH

3. I made a bunch of scripts as follows all in the /tmp/lin64/ directory:
x86_x64-linux-ar:
#!/bin/bash
ar $@

x86_x64-linux-gcc:
#!/bin/bash
has32=`echo "$@" | grep -- "-m32"`
if [ "$has32" = "" ] ; then
        gcc -m64 $@
else
        gcc $@
fi

x86_x64-linux-ld:
#!/bin/bash
ld -m64 $@

x86_x64-linux-nm:
#!/bin/bash
nm $@

x86_x64-linux-objcopy:
#!/bin/bash
objcopy $@

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 16:37 -0600, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> 
> >I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
> >I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs.  But the build fails
> >with:
> >
> >$ make ARCH=x86_64
> >  [...]
> >  CC      init/initramfs.o
> > 
> >
> 
> I have successfully done this using Debian/Sid.
> 

I added "-m64" to AFLAGS as well and now I get farther:

  CC      arch/x86_64/ia32/syscall32.o
  AS      arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.o
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S: Assembler messages:
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:14: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:16: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:18: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:25: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:27: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:29: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sigreturn.S:16: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.o] Error 1
make: *** [arch/x86_64/ia32] Error 2

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Jeffrey Hundstad]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1985 bytes --]

Lee Revell wrote:

>On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 16:37 -0600, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
>  
>
>>Lee Revell wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
>>>I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs.  But the build fails
>>>with:
>>>
>>>$ make ARCH=x86_64
>>> [...]
>>> CC      init/initramfs.o
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I have successfully done this using Debian/Sid.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I added "-m64" to AFLAGS as well and now I get farther:
>
>  CC      arch/x86_64/ia32/syscall32.o
>  AS      arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.o
>arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S: Assembler messages:
>arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:14: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
>arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:16: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
>arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:18: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
>arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:25: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
>arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:27: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
>arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:29: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
>arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sigreturn.S:16: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
>make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.o] Error 1
>make: *** [arch/x86_64/ia32] Error 2
>
>Lee
>
>  
>

Yes, some commands NEED the -m64 and and WILL NOT work with -m64.

Really, try my method.  I've done it without all that making a separate 
binutils non-sense.
You do need the 64-bit Debian build tools and 64 bit libraries.  These 
are the ones I have:

amd64-libs
amd64-libs-dev
lib64gcc1
lib64gfortran0
lib64ncurses5
lib64ncurses5-dev
lib64objc1
lib64stdc++6
lib64stdc++6-4.0-dbg
lib64z1
lib64z1-dev
libc6-amd64
libc6-dev-amd64


Yes... here's lin64.tar.gz if you didn't catch my little scripts before.
BTW: if there's a better way, please let me know.  ...After I got this 
to work I kinda quit looking ;-)

-- 
Jeffrey Hundstad


[-- Attachment #2: lin64.tar.gz --]
[-- Type: application/gzip, Size: 354 bytes --]

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 18:23 -0600, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 16:37 -0600, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Lee Revell wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
> >>>I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs.  But the build fails
> >>>with:
> >>>
> >>>$ make ARCH=x86_64
> >>> [...]
> >>> CC      init/initramfs.o
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I have successfully done this using Debian/Sid.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I added "-m64" to AFLAGS as well and now I get farther:
> >
> >  CC      arch/x86_64/ia32/syscall32.o
> >  AS      arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.o
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S: Assembler messages:
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:14: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:16: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:18: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:25: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:27: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:29: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sigreturn.S:16: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
> >make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.o] Error 1
> >make: *** [arch/x86_64/ia32] Error 2
> >
> >Lee
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> Yes, some commands NEED the -m64 and and WILL NOT work with -m64.
> 
> Really, try my method.  I've done it without all that making a separate 
> binutils non-sense.

Your scripts don't help.  I still need to add "-m64" to the CFLAGS and
AFLAGS to get it to work at all, otherwise gcc is invoked in 32 bit
mode, and they don't address the problem where some invocations of AS
need -m64 and some like:

  AS      arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.o

need -m32.

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 18:23 -0600, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 16:37 -0600, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Lee Revell wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
> >>>I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs.  But the build fails
> >>>with:
> >>>
> >>>$ make ARCH=x86_64
> >>> [...]
> >>> CC      init/initramfs.o
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I have successfully done this using Debian/Sid.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I added "-m64" to AFLAGS as well and now I get farther:
> >
> >  CC      arch/x86_64/ia32/syscall32.o
> >  AS      arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.o
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S: Assembler messages:
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:14: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:16: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:18: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:25: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:27: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:29: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
> >arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sigreturn.S:16: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
> >make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.o] Error 1
> >make: *** [arch/x86_64/ia32] Error 2
> >
> >Lee
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> Yes, some commands NEED the -m64 and and WILL NOT work with -m64.
> 

Aha!  I disabled CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION and it works perfectly.

So all that's needed to build an x86_64 kernel with the i386 Ubuntu 5.10
toolchain:

 - edit Makefile: add -m64 to CFLAGS and AFLAGS
 - disable CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION
 - make ARCH=x86_64

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Andi Kleen]

Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> writes:
> > 
> > Yes, some commands NEED the -m64 and and WILL NOT work with -m64.
> > 
> 
> Aha!  I disabled CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION and it works perfectly.
> 
> So all that's needed to build an x86_64 kernel with the i386 Ubuntu 5.10
> toolchain:
> 
>  - edit Makefile: add -m64 to CFLAGS and AFLAGS

I guess I can add that.

I'm surprised someone does such a weird setup. Only the very early
x86-64 distributions set up the gccs like this until it was noticed
that a gcc compiled for 64bit targets run noticeable slower on 32bit
and needs more memory. That's because it does everything with long
long internally then and gcc's code generation for long long is not
exactly great. So it's normally better to use a separate cross 
compiler for 64bit to keep the 32bit compilations running faster.

Ubuntu seems didn't pay attention to history and just repated that
mistake. In addition they don't seem to be very fond of contributing
changes back - normally one would expect the distribution maintainer
to submit a patch like this if they set up their gcc in non
traditional this way. 

But you're the first to bring this problem to my attention.

>  - disable CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION

I just tried it here. Adding -m64 to CFLAGS/AFLAGS on a native
64bit biarch toolchain and it compiled without problems. It ends
up with -m64 -m32 for the 32bit vsyscall files, but that seems
to DTRT at least in gcc 4.

I'm not sure what's going wrong. If you use a freshly unmodified tree
and apply the appended patch does it work for you?

-Andi

Pass -m64 by default

This might help on distributions that use a 32bit biarch compiler.

Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>

Index: linux/arch/x86_64/Makefile
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/Makefile
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/Makefile
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_MK8) += $(call cc-option
 cflags-$(CONFIG_MPSC) += $(call cc-option,-march=nocona)
 CFLAGS += $(cflags-y)
 
+CFLAGS += -m64
 CFLAGS += -mno-red-zone
 CFLAGS += -mcmodel=kernel
 CFLAGS += -pipe
@@ -52,6 +53,8 @@ CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-funit-at-a-t
 # prevent gcc from generating any FP code by mistake
 CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mno-sse -mno-mmx -mno-sse2 -mno-3dnow,)
 
+AFLAGS += -m64
+
 head-y := arch/x86_64/kernel/head.o arch/x86_64/kernel/head64.o arch/x86_64/kernel/init_task.o
 
 libs-y 					+= arch/x86_64/lib/

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 01:56 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> writes:
> >  - disable CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION
> 
> I just tried it here. Adding -m64 to CFLAGS/AFLAGS on a native
> 64bit biarch toolchain and it compiled without problems. It ends
> up with -m64 -m32 for the 32bit vsyscall files, but that seems
> to DTRT at least in gcc 4.

Nope, passing -m64 -m32 does not seem to DTRT on native 32bit biarch
toolchain:

make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=arch/x86_64/ia32
  gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86_64/ia32/.vsyscall-sysenter.o.d  -nostdinc
-isystem /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.0.2/include -D__KERNEL__
-Iinclude  -D__ASSEMBLY__ -m64  -m32  -c -o
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.o
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S: Assembler messages:
arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S:14: Error: suffix or operands
invalid for `push'

etc

That command succeeds if I run it by hand only passing -m32.

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Andi Kleen]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 12:12:03AM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 01:56 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> writes:
> > >  - disable CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION
> > 
> > I just tried it here. Adding -m64 to CFLAGS/AFLAGS on a native
> > 64bit biarch toolchain and it compiled without problems. It ends
> > up with -m64 -m32 for the 32bit vsyscall files, but that seems
> > to DTRT at least in gcc 4.
> 
> Nope, passing -m64 -m32 does not seem to DTRT on native 32bit biarch
> toolchain:

How about this patch? 

-Andi


Pass -m64 by default

This might help on distributions that use a 32bit biarch compiler.

Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>

Index: linux/arch/x86_64/Makefile
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/Makefile
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/Makefile
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_MK8) += $(call cc-option
 cflags-$(CONFIG_MPSC) += $(call cc-option,-march=nocona)
 CFLAGS += $(cflags-y)
 
+CFLAGS += -m64
 CFLAGS += -mno-red-zone
 CFLAGS += -mcmodel=kernel
 CFLAGS += -pipe
@@ -52,6 +53,8 @@ CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-funit-at-a-t
 # prevent gcc from generating any FP code by mistake
 CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mno-sse -mno-mmx -mno-sse2 -mno-3dnow,)
 
+AFLAGS += -m64
+
 head-y := arch/x86_64/kernel/head.o arch/x86_64/kernel/head64.o arch/x86_64/kernel/init_task.o
 
 libs-y 					+= arch/x86_64/lib/
Index: linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sigreturn.S
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sigreturn.S
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sigreturn.S
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
  * by doing ".balign 32" must match in both versions of the page.
  */
 
+	.code32
 	.section .text.sigreturn,"ax"
 	.balign 32
 	.globl __kernel_sigreturn
Index: linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-syscall.S
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-syscall.S
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-syscall.S
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
 #include <asm/segment.h>
 
+	.code32
 	.text
 	.section .text.vsyscall,"ax"
 	.globl __kernel_vsyscall
Index: linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
 #include <asm/ia32_unistd.h>
 #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
 
+	.code32
 	.text
 	.section .text.vsyscall,"ax"
 	.globl __kernel_vsyscall

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 08:19 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 12:12:03AM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 01:56 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> writes:
> > > >  - disable CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION
> > > 
> > > I just tried it here. Adding -m64 to CFLAGS/AFLAGS on a native
> > > 64bit biarch toolchain and it compiled without problems. It ends
> > > up with -m64 -m32 for the 32bit vsyscall files, but that seems
> > > to DTRT at least in gcc 4.
> > 
> > Nope, passing -m64 -m32 does not seem to DTRT on native 32bit biarch
> > toolchain:
> 
> How about this patch? 

Yes, works great.

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 08:19 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 12:12:03AM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 01:56 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> writes:
> > > >  - disable CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION
> > > 
> > > I just tried it here. Adding -m64 to CFLAGS/AFLAGS on a native
> > > 64bit biarch toolchain and it compiled without problems. It ends
> > > up with -m64 -m32 for the 32bit vsyscall files, but that seems
> > > to DTRT at least in gcc 4.
> > 
> > Nope, passing -m64 -m32 does not seem to DTRT on native 32bit biarch
> > toolchain:
> 
> How about this patch? 

FWIW it still fails at the final link step:

  ld -m elf_x86_64  -o .tmp_vmlinux1 -T arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds
arch/x86_64/kernel/head.o arch/x86_64/kernel/head64.o
arch/x86_64/kernel/init_task.o  init/built-in.o --start-group
usr/built-in.o  arch/x86_64/kernel/built-in.o  arch/x86_64/mm/built-in.o
arch/x86_64/crypto/built-in.o  arch/x86_64/ia32/built-in.o
kernel/built-in.o  mm/built-in.o  fs/built-in.o  ipc/built-in.o
security/built-in.o  crypto/built-in.o  lib/lib.a  arch/x86_64/lib/lib.a
lib/built-in.o  arch/x86_64/lib/built-in.o  drivers/built-in.o
sound/built-in.o  arch/x86_64/pci/built-in.o  net/built-in.o
--end-group 
ld:arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds:383: parse error
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1

Here are the relevant lines of arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds:

    382 OUTPUT_FORMAT("elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64")
    383 OUTPUT_ARCH(1:x86-64)
    384 ENTRY(phys_startup_64)

Any ideas?  Another toolchain quirk?

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Andi Kleen]

> Here are the relevant lines of arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds:
> 
>     382 OUTPUT_FORMAT("elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64")
>     383 OUTPUT_ARCH(1:x86-64)
>     384 ENTRY(phys_startup_64)
> 
> Any ideas?  Another toolchain quirk?

The original is 

OUTPUT_ARCH(i386:x86-64)

It replaced the i386 with 1, which obviously doesn't work.

Try (full patch again) 

-Andi


Pass -m64 by default

This might help on distributions that use a 32bit biarch compiler.

Also add some more .code32s because at least the Ubuntu biarch
32bit gcc doesn't seem to handle -m64 -m32 as generated
by the Makefile without such assistance.

Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>

Index: linux/arch/x86_64/Makefile
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/Makefile
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/Makefile
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_MK8) += $(call cc-option
 cflags-$(CONFIG_MPSC) += $(call cc-option,-march=nocona)
 CFLAGS += $(cflags-y)
 
+CFLAGS += -m64
 CFLAGS += -mno-red-zone
 CFLAGS += -mcmodel=kernel
 CFLAGS += -pipe
@@ -52,6 +53,8 @@ CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-funit-at-a-t
 # prevent gcc from generating any FP code by mistake
 CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mno-sse -mno-mmx -mno-sse2 -mno-3dnow,)
 
+AFLAGS += -m64
+
 head-y := arch/x86_64/kernel/head.o arch/x86_64/kernel/head64.o arch/x86_64/kernel/init_task.o
 
 libs-y 					+= arch/x86_64/lib/
Index: linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sigreturn.S
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sigreturn.S
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sigreturn.S
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
  * by doing ".balign 32" must match in both versions of the page.
  */
 
+	.code32
 	.section .text.sigreturn,"ax"
 	.balign 32
 	.globl __kernel_sigreturn
Index: linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-syscall.S
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-syscall.S
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-syscall.S
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
 #include <asm/segment.h>
 
+	.code32
 	.text
 	.section .text.vsyscall,"ax"
 	.globl __kernel_vsyscall
Index: linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.S
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
 #include <asm/ia32_unistd.h>
 #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
 
+	.code32
 	.text
 	.section .text.vsyscall,"ax"
 	.globl __kernel_vsyscall
Index: linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
+++ linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
 #include <asm/page.h>
 #include <linux/config.h>
 
+#undef i386	/* in case the preprocessor is a 32bit one */
+
 OUTPUT_FORMAT("elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64")
 OUTPUT_ARCH(i386:x86-64)
 ENTRY(phys_startup_64)

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 01:00 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Here are the relevant lines of arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds:
> > 
> >     382 OUTPUT_FORMAT("elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64")
> >     383 OUTPUT_ARCH(1:x86-64)
> >     384 ENTRY(phys_startup_64)
> > 
> > Any ideas?  Another toolchain quirk?
> 
> The original is 
> 
> OUTPUT_ARCH(i386:x86-64)
> 
> It replaced the i386 with 1, which obviously doesn't work.
> 
> Try (full patch again) 

OK perfect.  The build now completes successfully.

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 01:00 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Here are the relevant lines of arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds:
> > 
> >     382 OUTPUT_FORMAT("elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64")
> >     383 OUTPUT_ARCH(1:x86-64)
> >     384 ENTRY(phys_startup_64)
> > 
> > Any ideas?  Another toolchain quirk?
> 
> The original is 
> 
> OUTPUT_ARCH(i386:x86-64)
> 
> It replaced the i386 with 1, which obviously doesn't work.
> 
> Try (full patch again) 
> 

It still gives one error, at the final link step:

  LD      arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux
ld: warning: i386:x86-64 architecture of input file
`arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/head.o' is incompatible with i386 output

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 01:00 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Here are the relevant lines of arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds:
> > 
> >     382 OUTPUT_FORMAT("elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64")
> >     383 OUTPUT_ARCH(1:x86-64)
> >     384 ENTRY(phys_startup_64)
> > 
> > Any ideas?  Another toolchain quirk?
> 
> The original is 
> 
> OUTPUT_ARCH(i386:x86-64)
> 
> It replaced the i386 with 1, which obviously doesn't work.
> 
> Try (full patch again) 
> 

I still get:

  SYSCALL arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.so
/usr/bin/ld: warning: i386:x86-64 architecture of input file
`arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-sysenter.o' is incompatible with i386 output
  AS      arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-syscall.o
  SYSCALL arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-syscall.so
/usr/bin/ld: warning: i386:x86-64 architecture of input file
`arch/x86_64/ia32/vsyscall-syscall.o' is incompatible with i386 output
  AS      arch/x86_64/ia32/syscall32_syscall.o

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 01:00 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Here are the relevant lines of arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds:
> > 
> >     382 OUTPUT_FORMAT("elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64", "elf64-x86-64")
> >     383 OUTPUT_ARCH(1:x86-64)
> >     384 ENTRY(phys_startup_64)
> > 
> > Any ideas?  Another toolchain quirk?
> 
> The original is 
> 
> OUTPUT_ARCH(i386:x86-64)
> 
> It replaced the i386 with 1, which obviously doesn't work.
> 
> Try (full patch again) 

Do you expect these fixes to go into 2.6.16?

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Andi Kleen]

On Wednesday 11 January 2006 17:48, Lee Revell wrote:
 
> Do you expect these fixes to go into 2.6.16?

Yes.
-Andi

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Xavier Bestel]

Le vendredi 09 décembre 2005 à 13:50 -0500, Lee Revell a écrit :
> I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
> I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs. 

Under debian 32bits with 64bits kernel, I just add -m64 somewhere in the
main Makefile to rebuild my modules. Didn't try with a whole kernel
though.

	Xav

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 23:43 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le vendredi 09 décembre 2005 à 13:50 -0500, Lee Revell a écrit :
> > I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
> > I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs. 
> 
> Under debian 32bits with 64bits kernel, I just add -m64 somewhere in the
> main Makefile to rebuild my modules. Didn't try with a whole kernel
> though.

The bug seems to be that the kernel build system does not grok biarch
toolchains - it really insists on a separate toolchain for i386 and
x86_64 even though the situation can be handled with selective use of
-m64.  If I jsut add -m64 to everything then it fails when it gets to
the ia32 stuff.

Lee

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Xavier Bestel]

Le vendredi 09 décembre 2005 à 20:31 -0500, Lee Revell a écrit :
> On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 23:43 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > Le vendredi 09 décembre 2005 à 13:50 -0500, Lee Revell a écrit :
> > > I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
> > > I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs. 
> > 
> > Under debian 32bits with 64bits kernel, I just add -m64 somewhere in the
> > main Makefile to rebuild my modules. Didn't try with a whole kernel
> > though.
> 
> The bug seems to be that the kernel build system does not grok biarch
> toolchains - it really insists on a separate toolchain for i386 and
> x86_64 even though the situation can be handled with selective use of
> -m64.  If I jsut add -m64 to everything then it fails when it gets to
> the ia32 stuff.

Yes, you shouldn't compile host executables with -m64, obviously.

--- /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.14-2/Makefile.old        2005-12-10 21:32:17.000000000 +0100
+++ /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.14-2/Makefile    2005-11-17 14:26:02.000000000 +0100
@@ -352,7 +352,7 @@

 CFLAGS                 := -Wall -Wundef -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs \
                   -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common \
-                  -ffreestanding
+                  -ffreestanding -m64
 AFLAGS         := -D__ASSEMBLY__

 export VERSION PATCHLEVEL SUBLEVEL EXTRAVERSION LOCALVERSION KERNELRELEASE \


HTH,
	Xav

Re: i386 -> x86_64 cross compile failure (binutils bug?)

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 21:34 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le vendredi 09 décembre 2005 à 20:31 -0500, Lee Revell a écrit :
> > On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 23:43 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > > Le vendredi 09 décembre 2005 à 13:50 -0500, Lee Revell a écrit :
> > > > I'm trying to build an x66-64 kernel on a 32 bit system (Ubuntu 5.10).
> > > > I added -m64 to the CFLAGS as per the gcc docs. 
> > > 
> > > Under debian 32bits with 64bits kernel, I just add -m64 somewhere in the
> > > main Makefile to rebuild my modules. Didn't try with a whole kernel
> > > though.
> > 
> > The bug seems to be that the kernel build system does not grok biarch
> > toolchains - it really insists on a separate toolchain for i386 and
> > x86_64 even though the situation can be handled with selective use of
> > -m64.  If I jsut add -m64 to everything then it fails when it gets to
> > the ia32 stuff.
> 
> Yes, you shouldn't compile host executables with -m64, obviously.
> 
> --- /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.14-2/Makefile.old        2005-12-10 21:32:17.000000000 +0100
> +++ /usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.14-2/Makefile    2005-11-17 14:26:02.000000000 +0100
> @@ -352,7 +352,7 @@
> 
>  CFLAGS                 := -Wall -Wundef -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs \
>                    -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common \
> -                  -ffreestanding
> +                  -ffreestanding -m64
>  AFLAGS         := -D__ASSEMBLY__
> 
>  export VERSION PATCHLEVEL SUBLEVEL EXTRAVERSION LOCALVERSION KERNELRELEASE \
> 
> 
> HTH,

This would break native 32 bit kernel builds.  Andi's patch seems to be
the correct solution.

Lee