[uClibc]Building 0.9.16 with toolchain/gcc-3.2.1

Stefano Costa stefano.costa at bluewind.it
Tue Dec 3 11:26:35 UTC 2002


On 2 Dec 2002 at 11:19, Erik Andersen wrote:

> On Mon Dec 02, 2002 at 11:23:29AM +0100, Stefano Costa wrote:
> > I'm building the toolchain using the gcc-3.2.1 makefile (that uses 
> > gcc 3.2.1 and uClibc 0.9.16); building uClibc gives the following 
> > error (even with "use snapshot" set in the makefile). The previous 
> > gcc-3.2 makefile works fine, but I'd like to uprade to 3.2.1.
> 
> Fixed now.  Do a 'make clean' then a 'cvs up' and then 
> rebuild and it should work this time.  Sorry about that.
> There was a cut-n-paste error previously,

Done, now the toolchain with gcc 3.2.1 builds and so for: Linux 
2.4.19, Hermit, Shoehorn, Busybox (latest stable) and Tinylogin 
(latest stable). But unfortunatly as soon as Busybox gets called 
immediatly after root filesystem mount it crashes with something 
similar to:

VFS: Mounted root (nfs filesystem).
Freeing init memory: 52K
init started:  BusyBox v0.60.5 (2002.12.03-11:08+0000) multi-call 
binary
ldconfig: No such file or directory
pc : [<00017400>]    lr : [<00019784>]    Not tainted
sp : bffffdb0  ip : 00012630  fp : 00012620
r10: 0002452c  r9 : 00012628  r8 : bffffec4
r7 : 00000000  r6 : bffffec4  r5 : 00000001  r4 : 00000118
r3 : 000244c4  r2 : 00000005  r1 : 00000000  r0 : 00000118
Flags: Nzcv  IRQs on  FIQs on  Mode USER_32  Segment user
Control: 217F  Table: C01C0015  DAC: 00000015

After several tests, I discovered that both Busybox and Tinylogin 
fail this way if compiled with the "gcc 3.2.1 / uclibc 0.9.16" 
toolchain, while they work with the "gcc 3.2 / uclibc 0.9.15" 
toolchain (both tests made with the same kernel compiled with the 
"gcc 3.2.1 / uclibc 0.9.16" toolchain). If I rember well the uclibc 
0.9.16 has problem on ARM, now I'll build again the 3.2.1 toolchain 
with "use snapshot" instead, is it correct?

May I suggest that you give the "toolchain Makefile and related 
files" a version number, so that we can refer to "toolchain x.x.xx" 
instead of "the one that uses gcc..."? I know that now the different 
versions differ by gcc x.x.x but perheaps you may need to deliver 
versions that use many combinations of gcc / uclibc.
bye-

--
:: Bluewind :: Stefano Costa
:: Embedded Systems Design
www.bluewind.it
Mobile +39 335 6565749





More information about the uClibc mailing list