Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Add GCC cross compiler for arm-none-eabi.

[Theodoros Foradis <theodoros.for@openmailbox.org>]

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hi Theodoros,
>>
>> Theodoros Foradis <theodoros.for@openmailbox.org> skribis:
>>
>>> The original patch series was working correctly and producing working binaries. Some
>>> flags (that I had been using with 6.2.0) are missing from that version of GCC 4.9,
>>> so I added 6.2.0 as an extra option. I have tested it to produce working binaries.
>>>
>>> Here are some modifications to Ricardo's patches for the arm-none-eabi
>>> bare metal cross compiler. The following changes have been made:
>>>
>>> - I have modified xbinutils to use binutils 2.25.1 from cross-base, as it compiles
>>> correctly with it. The version from the svn commit that was used by Ricardo is compiling
>>> correct binaries as well. Thus, if it is deemed appropriate, the source for xbinutils can
>>> be swapped for the previous one, with (seemingly) no difference.
>>>
>>> - The xgcc of the original, was failing to find the headers that newlib provided.
>>> I have set the native-cross-paths as a workaround. Not sure if there is a better
>>> alternative, or if the failure was my mistake.
>>>
>>> - A package for cross GCC 6.2.0 is added, with appropriate patches for multilib
>>> support.
>>>
>>> - Newlib-arm-none-eabi and newlib-nano-arm-none-eabi have been changed to
>>> procedures, taking an xgcc as argument, so as to facilitate building with
>>> either version of gcc.
>>>
>>> - An arm-none-eabi-toolchain procedure is declared, to create toolchain packages
>>> for both gcc and newlib version. The four toolchain variables follow. Not sure
>>> if it's a mistake to include "nano" in the toolchain version.
>>
>> This all sounds reasonable to me.  Ricardo was interested in using this
>> toolchain for one specific purpose, so maybe we’ll want to check that it
>> also works here.  Ricardo: could you comment?
>
> The changes seem reasonable.  I wasn’t happy with using fixed SVN
> revisions in my patches, so I’m glad that this can be avoided.
>
> I haven’t yet found the time to apply the proposed changes, build the
> toolchain and try it with the Axoloti board.  I hope I’ll be able try on
> Sunday to first address your comments, Ludo.  Then I’ll check the
> suggested changes made by Theodoros (e.g. using different binutils and
> doing without SVN).
>
> Theodoros, I see that your patch set includes some of my patches as
> well.  The only changes I can see is the addition of the native search
> paths and parameterising newlib with xgcc, both of which I’ll add.
> After applying my modified patches I would apply your patches that add
> “arm-none-eabi-gcc-6” and the “arm-none-eabi-toolchain”.
>
> Is this acceptable?
>
> ~~ Ricardo

Yes, actually I did apply my patches on top of yours. It is perfectly
acceptable, with either version of binutils.

Regards,
-- 
Theodoros Foradis