From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Ferre Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:26:46 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Makefile: prevent libgcc to be linked twice In-Reply-To: <201110181206.22465.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <1318858875-14201-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> <201110171325.40585.vapier@gentoo.org> <4E9D3923.1050005@atmel.com> <201110181206.22465.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <4E9FDB46.1060504@atmel.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 10/18/2011 06:06 PM, Mike Frysinger : > On Tuesday 18 October 2011 04:30:27 Nicolas Ferre wrote: >> On 10/17/2011 07:25 PM, Mike Frysinger : >>> On Monday 17 October 2011 09:41:15 Nicolas Ferre wrote: >>>> If we define USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC, PLATFORM_LIBS is used during >>>> link. During this last link editing, libgcc may be listed twice >>>> and fail. >>>> Prevent this using "filter-out" in top Makefile. >>> >>> could you please provide more details ? libgcc should not be listed >>> twice. >> >> I compile current u-boot with the flowing command line: >> make -j5 CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabi- USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC=yes >> at91sam9m10g45ek_nandflash > > the issue shows up when using the board shortcut, and only when your tree is > already configured. if you use at91sam9m10g45ek_nandflash_config and then > another make, it works fine. if you start from a clean tree (git clean -x -d), > it works fine. Ah thanks for the information. Indeed it is a more common way of using the configuration/compilation flow... > this is due to PLATFORM_LIBS appending PLATFORM_LIBGCC when the tree has been > configured, then exporting PLATFORM_LIBS, then the board shortcut running > $(MAKE). the exported PLATFORM_LIBS gets LIBGCC appended a second time. > > this issue will show up with any value that gets appended to PLATFORM_LIBS and > not just libgcc. the arm code already hits this and deals with it locally. > seems like we should instead unify this logic, or redo PLATFORM_LIBS so that > it isn't an issue in the first place. Yes, that it a bit confusing... But with proper explanation, we can deal with this. Thanks for your help, best regards, -- Nicolas Ferre