Re: Crosstool/kbuild-all toolchain updates

From: Stafford Horne
Date: Thu Feb 23 2017 - 08:41:54 EST

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 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?



> 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