[coreboot] Now Proposal for cross-compiler Re: Simnow & payloads (Was: something else)

Segher Boessenkool segher at kernel.crashing.org
Fri May 16 19:02:09 CEST 2008

> I know that (recently) gcc/binutils has been through a "tightening"
> process where they have been trying to cleanup their act, by following
> more strict compiling/linking.

You mean that GCC continually improves its user error detection.

> This has resulted in quite a few builds
> being broken due to things that were once allowed and are not allowed 
> now.

"Things used to work accidentally, and are now correctly flagged
as errors".

> I like the idea of being able to "specify" a local toolchain.

Of course -- this is how every other project is built!

> This would
> give someone the option to compile and build with a "known" good
> toolchain.

Or a known-bad.  Or just a different one, for testing or whatever.

> I feel this is useful in that toolchain problems can be very
> difficult to track down.

Yes, they can be.  They usually aren't though.

> They normally manifest themselves in a seg
> fault when running the compiled application or a very ambiguous error
> message during linking/compiling.

Make sure you enable lots of compiler warnings, they help find fishy

If you don't understand the errors the compiler is throwing, please
ask (on gcc-help, for example), or read the manual.  I'm sure many
error messages can be improved; please file PRs for that, or send
patches, etc.

> I will look at this and see what changes would need to be made to
> buildrom to make so you can specify a different local compiler. This
> would follow along the lines of $(CROSS-COMPILER) macro that is usually
> used for compiling an application with a cross-compiler.

Most people use $(CC) and $(CFLAGS), etc.


More information about the coreboot mailing list