Paul Sokolovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello Joe, > > As another OE newbie who already got some momentum learning it, > I guess I'll try to share my wisdom on the most obvious questions...
Thanks very much! > Monday, July 10, 2006, 7:05:51 PM, you wrote: > >> Michael 'Mickey' Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> I recommend the following procedure: > >> Thanks very much for taking the time to try to explain this to me! > >>> 1.) get your EZX-toolchain up and running with all necessary libraries >>> available you want to link against. > >> I had been under the impression that the OpenEmbedded framework can >> help with building the compiler tools. Is this not true, or is there >> some reason why in this particular case OpenEmbedded does not help? > >> If OpenEmbedded can't build the toolchain, is there a good tutorial >> somewhere which explains in detail how to do this? > > Yes, it can build everything. But you said yourself you'd prefer to > use existing device setup, which means you'd use existing "official" > SDK, and that must contain build and set up toolchain. Do you consider > building you own compiler and then figure out how to integrate it with > libs/headers/etc of existing SDK? Why would you want to spend time on > that? I don't have any access to an official SDK, because Motorola has refused to release one. :-( So I have to arrange to build all the compiler tools myself. I'm hoping to figure out what incantation will coax the OpenEmbedded software into building them for me. I do want to use the libraries on the machine. The major reason is that they are used by programs from Motorola which I will leave running, so they are already taking up RAM. A minor reason is that they are already in flash ROM, so they don't cost any storage space. I will have to come up with all headers for these libraries. :-( >> Is anything needed other than "cc" and "ld" replacements? > > You may assume entire gcc/binutils suite is needed. Just curious, what does this entail? cc, ld, as, cpp, c++? Anything else? I wondered if only cc and ld were needed because that seems to be what org.openembedded.dev/packages/sharprom-toolchain/sharprom-toolchain-native_1.0.bb provides. >>> Make it known to OpenEmbedded that you have your own toolchain, i.e.: >>> >>> ASSUME_PROVIDED += "virtual/arm-linux-gcc-2.95 binutils-cross >>> gcc-cross-initial gcc-cross" >>> ASSUME_PROVIDED += "virtual/arm-linux-libc-for-gcc >>> virtual/arm-linux-binutils virtual/arm-linux-gcc" >>> ASSUME_PROVIDED += "virtual/arm-linux-gcc-initial >>> virtual/arm-linux-gcc-initial >>> ASSUME_PROVIDED += "virtual/libc linux-libc-headers" > >> Can someone explain the structure of the value of ASSUME_PROVIDED? > > ASSUME_PROVIDED is a string containg list of packages which assumed > pre-existing, i.e. OE won't try to build them. RTFM. That's what I guessed. I was mainly asking about the things inside it. >> I apologize in advance if my questions sound stupid, but this all >> looks like voodoo to me. If I want to become a voodoo practitioner >> like you folks, I need to ask a few basic questions. :-) > >> What is the difference between the items that are prefixed with >> "virtual/" and those which are not? > > It's purely a (mis)convention. It's just a hint that such a package > is actually a placeholder for another package. There're lots of > toolchains/kernels/etc in OE, and it can be said that collectively they > are called "virtual/<something>". You select actual implementation for > "virtual" package via ASSUME_PROVIDED or PREFERRED_PROVIDER_*. > >> What is the difference between "gcc-cross-initial" and "gcc-cross"? > > The former lacks complete libraries (likely even libc). Consider > it's a bootstrap once-off package. > >> What is the difference between "virtual/arm-linux-lib-2.95" and >> "virtual/arm-linux-gcc"? > > Yep, the former is lib, the latter is compiler ;-) Or assuming it's > a typo, Yes, sorry for the typo, I meant "virtual/arm-linux-gcc-2.95". I was copying from the sample ASSUME_PROVIDED definition. > the first would be guranteed to be a gcc of version 2.95, > whereas second would be the the version accepted by OE (or specific > distro) to be good to build the stuff. Why are both needed in ASSUME_PROVIDED? Thanks very much for your helpful answers! -- Joe _______________________________________________ Oe mailing list [email protected] https://www.handhelds.org/mailman/listinfo/oe
