From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7836677370762233746=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Blibbet <blibbet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CHIPSEC error when building LUV image
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:13:39 -0700
Message-ID: <56291943.9090001@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <56215752.7030304@gmail.com>
List-Id: <oe-chipsec.lists.linux.dev>
To: chipsec@lists.01.org

--===============7836677370762233746==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You might also want to ask on the LUV list about this build error. This
might be a LUV-centric issue. The LUV team ported CHIPSEC to their
system. The CHIPSEC team -- AFAIK -- has/have been using an alternative
Linux live-boot solution until recently, so the LUV team may be better
to answer a LUV-centric build question than the CHIPSEC team.

I wonder:
Does a 32- and 64-bit LUV behave differently, w/r/t firmware tests, on
different architectures?
Does CHIPSEC behave differently on when built 32- or 64-bit -- on Linux
or Windows or UEFI?
Perhaps we need LUV64-live and LUV32-live to solve??
Gettting more confused as I type, so I'll stop typing. :-)

On 10/16/2015 01:00 PM, Blibbet wrote:
> On 10/14/2015 10:08 AM, Dey, Megha wrote:
>> I wanted to know if the CHIPSEC test suite builds and runs on 32 bit
> platforms?
>
> I don't know the cause of your problems, but the CHIPSEC PDF says
> Windows x86/x64, and says that on Linux, Debian is the only one
> explicitly listed with 32-bit, Fedora and Ubuntu say 64-bit, LUV entry
> does not specify.
>
> If possible to build LUV with LLVM clang, you might try that, it gives
> much better warnings than GCC.
>
> I've only built CHIPSEC on Linux, and only for 64-bit targets. And I'm
> afraid I can't help building a local LUV at the moment, sorry.
>
> Lee
>
>


--===============7836677370762233746==--