[Buildroot] [Bug 11166] Erlang bad argument on valid uint64 when crosscompiled on 64-bit host
bugzilla at busybox.net
bugzilla at busybox.net
Fri Aug 3 22:35:16 UTC 2018
https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=11166
--- Comment #2 from Frank Vasquez <frankv at helium.com> ---
Thank you for your prompt reply, Frank. I was away on vacation and am just
getting back to this now.
> I assume bitcask was cross-compiled outside of Buildroot, right?
Yes and no. Our application is being built using rebar3 as opposed to
Buildroot's built-in rebar-package support. Our package .mk file looks like
this.
define BEAMCOIN_BUILD_CMDS
$(MAKE) $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) -C $(@D) compile \
PATH='$(BR2_EXTERNAL_HELIUM_PATH)/output/host/lib/erlang/bin:$(PATH)' \
CPATH='$(BR2_EXTERNAL_HELIUM_PATH)/output/target/usr/lib/erlang/usr/include:$(CPATH)'
\
LDFLAGS='-L$(BR2_EXTERNAL_HELIUM_PATH)/output/build/erlang-20.0/lib/erl_interface/obj/arm-buildroot-linux-gnueabihf
-fPIC -shared'
endef
$(eval $(generic-package))
And the underlying Makefile looks like this.
REBAR=./rebar3
compile:
$(REBAR) compile
You can see from FOOBAR_BUILD_CMDS that I set PATH, CPATH and LDFLAGS so that
the NIFs cross-compile correctly. Don't know if I am going about that the
right way. At least the NIFs appear to build fine on x86 32-bit hosts. My
team is doing bleeding edge blockchain work in Erlang (much of it already open
source) so they really want to use rebar3.
> Is it possible to reproduce this with a small Erlang application?
I believe so. I will try to assemble a small repro using just rebar3 and
bitcask.
Cheers,
Frank
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the buildroot
mailing list