Re: [coreboot] Wiki account

[Vincent Legoll]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Reinauer  wrote:
> Sure. A mail with additional information was sent to you by the Wiki.

Thanks
> > What I'll add is that you need to use a crosscompiler to build
> > successfully the new trunk/filo branch.
>
> Please don't add this, it's not true.

OK I'm trying to understand why it does not work as expected here.
> Then something is wrong with your native compiler. None of the x64
> systems I've been compiling on requires a compiler.
> How did you run the make process?

make clean && make
> can you try executing
>
> gcc -m32 -print-libgcc-file-name ?

$ gcc -m32 -print-libgcc-file-name
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.1/32/libgcc.a

And now I'm very confused, because I wanted to add that nm on that library
showed missing __udivdi3, but it isn't, I certainly did that when first met the
problem and now it does tell me it's there... :-/

OK I did the -print-libgcc-file-name without -m32 at that time, that explains
the confusion. the -m32 libgcc.a has the required functions.

And I found why it was failing for me: all the $(CC) calls made in Makefile
are not "-m32"-ized, especially the "-print-libgcc-file-name" one...
> what gcc version are you using? Looks like your compiler is seriously
> broken then.

It seems to work fine with the attached (better) patch

Wiki account

[Peter Stuge]

Vincent Legoll wrote:
> And I found why it was failing for me: all the $(CC) calls made in
> Makefile are not "-m32"-ized, especially the
> "-print-libgcc-file-name" one...

So why not just

CC=$(CC) -m32

?

//Peter

Wiki account

[Vincent Legoll]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Peter Stuge  wrote:
> Vincent Legoll wrote:
> > And I found why it was failing for me: all the $(CC) calls made in
> > Makefile are not "-m32"-ized, especially the
> > "-print-libgcc-file-name" one...
>
> So why not just
>
> CC=$(CC) -m32

Yes, that's a smaller (better) equivalent patch

Wiki account

[Vincent Legoll]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Vincent Legoll
 wrote:
> > So why not just
> >
> > CC=$(CC) -m32
>
> Yes, that's a smaller (better) equivalent patch

Here is what I came with, implementing Peter's idea