Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:07:20 +0100 | From | Herbert Poetzl <> | Subject | Re: Kernel Cross Compiling [update] |
| |
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 10:52:09AM -0500, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:53:50AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > linux-2.6.3-rc3 linux-2.6.3 > > config build config build > > > > sh/sh: OK FAILED OK FAILED > > sh64/sh: OK FAILED OK FAILED > > sh64 doesn't exist in 2.6 yet, attempting to build a kernel > for it is futile.
hmm, I guess that explains the sh64/sh build failure ... ;)
but why does the sh/sh case fail?
> > others seem to require different? binutils (sh and sh64) > > > sh and sh64 require completely different toolchains. > They're very different platforms, and have very little in common.
okay, binutils and gcc seem to 'know' sh and sh64 as architectures, (in my case binutils 2.14.90.0.8, and gcc 3.3.2, w/o any patches), what binutils/gcc would you suggest for building sh or sh64?
> > linux-2.4.25 > > config dep kernel modules > > > > sh/sh: OK OK FAILED FAILED > > These are due to erroring on .rept usage for filling in the > sys_call_table in arch/sh/kernel/entry.S, in 2.6 we've already > cleaned this up in the LinuxSH tree by just dropping it and > padding out for NR_syscalls, I suppose something similar will > have to be done in the 2.4 case.. > > > sh64/sh64: OK OK FAILED FAILED > > > The sh64 build errors according to logs[7] are issues with your > toolchain, binutils in particular.
is there a toolchain/binutils which 'know' and 'support' the '-isa=sh64' option? maybe it was depreciated?
gcc -isa=sh64 x.c cc1: error: unrecognized option `-isa=sh64'
thanks for your input, I honestly appreciate it,
TIA, Herbert
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |