Re: [GIT PULL] Trivial sh64 updates for 2.6.23-rc1

[Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 01:18:27PM +0200, Jan Dittmer wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 04:07:21PM +0200, Jan Dittmer wrote:
> >> Paul Mundt wrote:
> >> Tangential question. Which is the currently recommended cross toolchain
> >> for sh64? With "gcc 3.2 20020529", "binutils 020306 20030206" (some
> >> binary toolchain from ~2 years ago somewhere off the web) I get [1]
> 
> <error snipped>
> 
> >> gcc 3.4.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x don't build for me from source
> >> (target -superh-linux-gnu, binutils 2.15.x or 2.17.x).
> > 
> > I've been using sh64-linux targetted toolchains created from the gentoo
> > crossdev, which works fine with stock versions. I can send you a tarball
> > of the toolchain off-list if you like.
> 
> Binutils, gcc versions would be fine to. Meanwhile I got binutils
> 2.17.50.0.17.20070615 and gcc 4.1.3 20070704 (prerelease) to compile
> (supplying it with uclibc- and lk-headers). But compiling 2.6.22-git17
> now fails with
> 
>   CC      drivers/video/cfbimgblt.o
>   CC      drivers/video/fb_defio.o
>   LD      drivers/video/built-in.o
>   LD      drivers/built-in.o
> sh64-linux-ld: sh3 architecture of input file `drivers/media/built-in.o'
> is incompatible with sh5 output
> sh64-linux-ld: sh3 architecture of input file `drivers/i2c/built-in.o'
> is incompatible with sh5 output
> make[2]: *** [drivers/built-in.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [drivers] Error 2
> make: *** [_all] Error 2
> 
> Known?
> 
It's known that empty objects require explicit tuning for the ABI,
however, this has never been anything that was fatal. If you flip
something on within each of those subsystems, does the error go away?