On 28/8/20 5:39 am, Michael Davidsaver wrote: > Is there a way to ask RSB to either build the toolchain > (ie. gcc itself) without debug symbols, or to strip them > prior to install?
Not at the moment but this would be a nice feature. I can see it being needed. > > https://github.com/mdavidsaver/rsb/releases/ > > I keep a set of pre-built RTEMS pc*86 toolchains for use > by CI builders, principally travis-ci.org. In looking > at adding RTEMS 5.1 to this I noticed that the resulting > compressed tar was considerably larger that previously. > 4.9 or 4.10 for pc386 are ~100MB, while 5.1 for pc686 > is weighing in at 380MB. > > Looking into it, most of this size seems to be in debug > symbols. eg. "libexec/gcc/i386-rtems5/7.5.0/cc1plus" > is (uncompressed) 166MB with debug symbols and 26MB without. That is a saving. The RSB could scan the tree of files before coping them to the install point and for any host executable run the host's `strip` command. I suppose we could also run it on any host archives if there is any easy way to detect them. A tool chain also installs the various libc, libm, libstd++ etc libraries for the RTEMS architecture. With an expanding number multilibs in some architectures the number and so the overall size of those libraries is growing. I am not sure if we can do something about that. Stripping them would help but this leaves you with RTEMS executables that have no debugging info. Would that be an issue? > Also, I installed the following packages to a clean > ubuntu 18.04.5 image in order to build. This release > doesn't install /usr/bin/python by default (just 'python3'). > The GDB build seems to handle this just fine, but the > rtems-tools build errors when it can't run 'python'. This is a complex issue with no simple solution for users that we can see. I have raised a ticket for this against the 5.2 milestone: https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4064 We have been discussing this topic in: https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4037 The `waf` part of the discussion is relevant here. The RSB can be considered a "user" and so it needs to manage the lack of a `python` command. > bison > flex > texinfo > unzip > git > python3-dev > python-dev I do not think adding a check to `sb-check` is the answer, I think having the RSB invoke `waf` as `python3 waf ...` is the best solution but I need to teach it to do this. As a work around if you create a virtual environment to build the tools in using ... python3 -m venv rtems-rsb . ./rtems-rsb/bin/activate ... you should have a `python` command in your path. I consider this a work around to an RSB fix but it is something you can do now. I have added this documentation about this to the user manual on `master`, maybe it should be ported onto the 5 branch? Chris _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users