[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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
> >
> > 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, 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
> >
> 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,


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.105 / U:5.976 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site