On 01/03/2018 08:43 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Wed, 2017-12-13 at 10:45 +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
Fixed:
MACHINE = "qemux86-64"
require conf/multilib.conf
MULTILIBS = "multilib:lib32"
DEFAULTTUNE_virtclass-multilib-lib32 = "x86"
IMAGE_FSTYPES += "iso"
$ bitbake lib32-core-image-minimal
ERROR: lib32-core-image-minimal-1.0-r0 do_bootimg: The file
/usr/include/printf.h is installed by both glibc and lib32-glibc,
aborting
This was because:
lib32-syslinux -> lib32-glibc
virtual/kernel -> glibc
We can build 64bit syslinux (only build, not install) to fix the
problem, the
do_bootimg only needs several data files of syslinux such as
vesamenu.c32,
these files are not arch related.
Hi Robert,
Hi RP,
Thanks for the reply.
I've been thinking about this one and I'm not 100% convinced this is
the right thing to do.
When we build "lib32-core-image-minimal", one of the things we want to
avoid is building two different toolchains, there should only be one
needed for this image.
If there is a dependency on "syslinux", that will need the non-multilib
toolchain. I suspect that is why libX-syslinux was used as a
dependency.
Also, there are some things which never make sense as a multilib, the
kernel is one example and I'm starting to wonder if syslinux would be
another. In the kernel (and kernel module) case we'd provide all the
libX variants from the same recipe, we may want to do that for
syslinux.
I think that syslinux is different from kernel, 64bit kernel can provide
32bit kernel via kernel config, but syslinux can't (except these non
arch files).
It may be we can't avoid the multiple compiler issue and the current
codebase may not do so, I think currently we can avoid multiple glibc
though.
I'm not sure about a problem on this, should lib32-image can run 64bit
programs or not ? If yes, then kernel should be 64bit, and we can't avoid
building 64bit compilers. And I'm leaning to yes since we call it multilib,
the pure 32bit image which can't run 64bit programs can't be called multilib.
I did a rough search on why glibc is built, when bitbake lib32-image, it
is because:
64 bit kernel -> gcc-cross-x86_64 -> virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}libc-for-gcc,
and the TARGET_PREFIX is x86_64 when building gcc-cross-x86_64,
While the virtual/x86_64-poky-linux-libc-for-gcc is provided by glibc.
I tried to remove the depends, both "bitbake gcc-cross-x86_64" and
"bitbake linux-yocto" can be built, but other recipes such as quilt would
be failed:
|
/workspace1/lyang1/test_1/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/libgcc/7.2.0-r0/recipe-sysroot-native/usr/bin/x86_64-poky-linux/../../libexec/x86_64-poky-linux/gcc/x86_64-poky-linux/7.2.0/ld:
cannot find crti.o: No such file or directory
|
/workspace1/lyang1/test_1/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/libgcc/7.2.0-r0/recipe-sysroot-native/usr/bin/x86_64-poky-linux/../../libexec/x86_64-poky-linux/gcc/x86_64-poky-linux/7.2.0/ld:
cannot find -lc
|
/workspace1/lyang1/test_1/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/libgcc/7.2.0-r0/recipe-sysroot-native/usr/bin/x86_64-poky-linux/../../libexec/x86_64-poky-linux/gcc/x86_64-poky-linux/7.2.0/ld:
cannot find crtn.o: No such file or directory
| collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
| Makefile:978: recipe for target 'libgcc_s.so' failed
And move virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}libc-for-gcc to BASE_DEFAULT_DEPS can't make
it work either, so it seems that we can't avoid building glibc.
Regardless, I do think this needs a little more thought, we also need
better multiple test cases as we're not catching issues like this.
think this needs to be revisited along with your outstanding multilib
patch series which I haven't found the time to review yet (sorry).
That's all right, I'm very glad to make mutilib work well, including
adding test cases for them. It is nearly broken after changed from
smart + rpm5 to dnf + rpm4, those patches fixed the problem.
// Robert
Cheers,
Richard
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
