Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1584139 > unrolled thread

Re: Crosstool/kbuild-all toolchain updates

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Crosstool/kbuild-all toolchain updates Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com> - 2017-02-19 14:30 +0100
    Re: Crosstool/kbuild-all toolchain updates Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2017-02-19 17:00 +0100
    Re: Crosstool/kbuild-all toolchain updates Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> - 2017-02-19 19:00 +0100
      Re: Crosstool/kbuild-all toolchain updates Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 14:50 +0100

#1584139 — Re: Crosstool/kbuild-all toolchain updates

Hi Stafford,

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:44:38AM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
>Hi Fengguang/All,
>
>I am working as the OpenRISC linux kernel maintainer.  Currently in
>linux-next our patches are causing kbuild test robot to fail.
>
>This is because the patches are taking advantage of 2 'new' (2 year old)
>instrucions (l.swa/l.lwa) and the build robots, as far as I can tell,
>use the 'make.cross' [0] build script from lkp-tests.git.  These point
>to the crosstools [1] toolchains maintained by Tony.
>
>I sent a mail to Tony who maintains the crosstools but I didn't get a
>reply and it seems he is not longer working on them [1].
>
>I think our options are:
>
>  1. Update 'make.cross' to point somewhere else for openrisc
>  2. Update and maintain crosstools
>
>For 1. its trvial but, maybe not the best solution.

It's a valuable patch, thank you!

>For 2. I created new crosstool builds for openrisc [3]. The way the
>crosstools are maintained is via a patches.tar file and it seem a custom
>buildall script.  I dont see the source for that custom script anywhere.
>
>I am thinking I could help to update and 'opensource' the crosstool
>build scripts to make it easier for everyone to update toolchains by
>sending patches.
>
>But, I would need access to crosstool on kernel.org and an OK from
>everyone.
>
>Any opinions? Questions?

An uptodate crosstool and reasonable active maintainer would be very
welcome. I'll sure be a heavy user. In the past year when crosstool is
not updated to gcc-6, we've resorted to using debian packages for some
ARCHs and building our own cross compliers for the other ARCHs. The
latter are based on Segher's buildall tools (CCed). The private builds
may work for us in short term, however is obvious not a satisfactory
solution.

Thanks,
Fengguang

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1584165

On 02/19/2017 05:26 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Stafford,
>
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:44:38AM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
>> Hi Fengguang/All,
>>
>> I am working as the OpenRISC linux kernel maintainer.  Currently in
>> linux-next our patches are causing kbuild test robot to fail.
>>
>> This is because the patches are taking advantage of 2 'new' (2 year old)
>> instrucions (l.swa/l.lwa) and the build robots, as far as I can tell,
>> use the 'make.cross' [0] build script from lkp-tests.git.  These point
>> to the crosstools [1] toolchains maintained by Tony.
>>
>> I sent a mail to Tony who maintains the crosstools but I didn't get a
>> reply and it seems he is not longer working on them [1].
>>
>> I think our options are:
>>
>>  1. Update 'make.cross' to point somewhere else for openrisc
>>  2. Update and maintain crosstools
>>
>> For 1. its trvial but, maybe not the best solution.
>
> It's a valuable patch, thank you!
>
>> For 2. I created new crosstool builds for openrisc [3]. The way the
>> crosstools are maintained is via a patches.tar file and it seem a custom
>> buildall script.  I dont see the source for that custom script anywhere.
>>
>> I am thinking I could help to update and 'opensource' the crosstool
>> build scripts to make it easier for everyone to update toolchains by
>> sending patches.
>>
>> But, I would need access to crosstool on kernel.org and an OK from
>> everyone.
>>
>> Any opinions? Questions?
>
> An uptodate crosstool and reasonable active maintainer would be very
> welcome. I'll sure be a heavy user. In the past year when crosstool is
> not updated to gcc-6, we've resorted to using debian packages for some
> ARCHs and building our own cross compliers for the other ARCHs. The
> latter are based on Segher's buildall tools (CCed). The private builds
> may work for us in short term, however is obvious not a satisfactory
> solution.
>

+1

Guenter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1584212

Hi!

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:26:37PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> An uptodate crosstool and reasonable active maintainer would be very
> welcome. I'll sure be a heavy user. In the past year when crosstool is
> not updated to gcc-6, we've resorted to using debian packages for some
> ARCHs and building our own cross compliers for the other ARCHs. The
> latter are based on Segher's buildall tools (CCed). The private builds
> may work for us in short term, however is obvious not a satisfactory
> solution.

Buildall supports GCC only, and this is not likely to change.

The primary usecase for buildall is for my own GCC testing.  All patches
are welcome, but I'm not likely to apply them if they make it harder to
use the tools for what their goal is.  I'm certainly not going to apply
patches to other trees from the scripts, etc.

Buildall itself is still maintained.  It does not get very many updates
but that is because it is close to perfect ;-)

On the other hand I'll be happy to help wherever I can.  Just Cc: me on
whatever comes up.


Segher

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1586897

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:49:23AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:26:37PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > An uptodate crosstool and reasonable active maintainer would be very
> > welcome. I'll sure be a heavy user. In the past year when crosstool is
> > not updated to gcc-6, we've resorted to using debian packages for some
> > ARCHs and building our own cross compliers for the other ARCHs. The
> > latter are based on Segher's buildall tools (CCed). The private builds
> > may work for us in short term, however is obvious not a satisfactory
> > solution.
> 
> Buildall supports GCC only, and this is not likely to change.

I think we are not requiring more at this moment.

My thought was to open up/modernize the crostool build system and store it
on git.kernel.org.  Currently Tony mentions [0] "They are built using a
modified version of the buildall scripts".  I am hoping we can get those
from him and..

  - Create a project kernel/git/{user}/crosstool.git
  - Store there
    * build script (wrapping buildall)
    * any patches needed i.e. or1k/gcc.patch
    * scripts for signing and uploading binaries to website
    * container config for setting up whole build in docker
       * i.e. something like masami's linux-cross [1]

The idea being that then when people want to update binaries they can
just send a patch.  The maintainer need just run the scripts.

Another question, does anyone use the 32-bit binaries anymore?

-Stafford

[0] https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/
[1] https://github.com/mhiramat/linux-cross/tree/master/linux-cross-build

> The primary usecase for buildall is for my own GCC testing.  All patches
> are welcome, but I'm not likely to apply them if they make it harder to
> use the tools for what their goal is.  I'm certainly not going to apply
> patches to other trees from the scripts, etc.
> 
> Buildall itself is still maintained.  It does not get very many updates
> but that is because it is close to perfect ;-)
> 
> On the other hand I'll be happy to help wherever I can.  Just Cc: me on
> whatever comes up.
> 
> 
> Segher

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web