On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:57 -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
On 30/11/07 15:29 -0800, Steve Isaacs wrote:
Is it a viable solution to have buildrom build a cross-tool chain? Imho:
This would be best in order to have repeatable results. Having config
options to control the gcc and binutils
On 03/12/07 08:34 -0800, Steve Isaacs wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:57 -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
On 30/11/07 15:29 -0800, Steve Isaacs wrote:
Is it a viable solution to have buildrom build a cross-tool chain? Imho:
This would be best in order to have repeatable results. Having
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:08 +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
However - I want it to remain optional rather than a requirement,
so that the entry level stays as low as possible for as many as
possible.
I agree. A fully native build should be supported for when it's
appropriate and to keep the
On 03/12/07 10:32 -0800, Steve Isaacs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:08 +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
However - I want it to remain optional rather than a requirement,
so that the entry level stays as low as possible for as many as
possible.
I agree. A fully native build should be
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 11:52 -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
I'm already on board with my opinion on a cross compiler, no need to rehash
that here.
But the thing about _this_ bug is that this can be fixed, and if you use
buildrom it _should_ be fixed. This is our fault, and we need to remedy it
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 10:40 -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
You don't have to worry - as you can infer from the e-mail address, I am
keenly aware of the challenges that we have to face for commercial adoption.
It is one of my primary goals to ensure that LinuxBIOS becomes and stays
a viable
On 03/12/07 11:29 -0800, Steve Isaacs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 11:52 -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
I'm already on board with my opinion on a cross compiler, no need to rehash
that here.
But the thing about _this_ bug is that this can be fixed, and if you use
buildrom it _should_ be
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 13:19 -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
they happen. The problem is that LinuxBIOS compiler arguments are pretty
long, and its a pain to go through them all to figure out which files
don't have -fno-stack-protector attached to them. The best way to do it
is to figure out
* Peter Stuge [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071203 18:08]:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 08:34:00AM -0800, Steve Isaacs wrote:
I believe that like it or not if you want LinuxBIOS to be widely
accepted it must be able to demonstrate repeatability.
Excellent point! I agree with you completely.
We should
* Steve Isaacs [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071203 19:32]:
- Buildrom be enhanced to --optionally-- download and install in a
user's sandbox a toolchain builder.
I don't think buildrom is the place for this. It's pretty much out of
the scope for the project.
Next time a distribution ships a broken
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 21:53 +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
We already have all this: That's why I developed the LinuxBIOS test
system that started producing binary images at a central point:
http://qa.linuxbios.org/log_test.php?timestamp=20061109-173426device=epia-mvendor=viamanual=true
On 03/12/07 22:02 +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
- Problems found in the toolchain builder be fed back to the toolchain
builder project thus satisfying Jordan's point of having a
responsibility to fix the toolset when broken. Crosstool builders often
employ target specific patches when
* Steve Isaacs [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071203 22:19]:
Did I miss something? Is this something that others can use? btw: the
URL didn't point to anything other than a test report.
In theory, yes. Anyone can hook up a mainboard into the test system. And
anyone else can then submit bios images to be
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 10:36:51PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
You can add the following lines to your
target/vendor/board/Config.lb:
option CC=i386-elf-gcc
# this one is CFLAGS.
option CPU_OPT=-O2 -Wl,...
option HOSTCC=gcc
Yep, this should be in the wiki (FAQ?) if it's not already
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 02:11:50PM -0800, Steve Isaacs wrote:
So, I summarize. If I need a consistent and repeatable build I use the
toolchain of my choice and use the above to point the LinuxBIOS build to
that toolchain.
Yep, pretty much. For a product you probably also want to stick with a
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 22:45 +0100, Uwe Hermann wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 10:36:51PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
You can add the following lines to your
target/vendor/board/Config.lb:
option CC=i386-elf-gcc
# this one is CFLAGS.
option CPU_OPT=-O2 -Wl,...
option HOSTCC=gcc
When attempting to use buildrom I'm seeing the undefined reference to
`__stack_chk_fail' message. I see that this was a topic of discussion
back in January but haven't found anything to say how or if this was
resolved. At the risk of scratching an old itch I have to ask if this
was resolved or if
On 30/11/07 15:29 -0800, Steve Isaacs wrote:
Is it a viable solution to have buildrom build a cross-tool chain? Imho:
This would be best in order to have repeatable results. Having config
options to control the gcc and binutils versions cross-host build
repeatability would be improved.
This
18 matches
Mail list logo
