crosstool-ng: No CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER set when building a standard CROSS...

crosstool-ng: No CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER set when building a standard CROSS...

[Joachim Nilsson]

Hi everyone!

Using crosstool-ng I selected to build a standard cross toolchain using 
GCC 4.4.1. To that end I imported some gcc patches from buildroot and 
everything seemed fine.  Until I got to the final part of the build.

[EXTRA]    Installing toolchain wrappers
[ALL  ]    ln: accessing `.armeb-redfox-linux-uclibc-wrapper': No such 
file or directory
[ERROR]    Build failed in step 'Cleaning-up the toolchain's directory'
[ERROR]    Error happened in 
'/home/INTRANET/joachim/crosstool-ng/scripts/functions' in function 
'CT_DoExecLog' (line unknown, sorry)
[ERROR]          called from 
'/home/INTRANET/joachim/crosstool-ng/scripts/build/internals.sh' at line 
# 76 in function 'do_finish'
[ERROR]          called from 
'/home/INTRANET/joachim/crosstool-ng/scripts/crosstool-NG.sh' at line # 
544 in function 'main'

It seems that in scripts/build/internals.sh if CT_WRAPPER_NEEDED is set 
it also needs CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER to be set, but for my standard cross 
setup the CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER is not set in the .config file.

The build fails a couple of lines later in scripts/build/internals.sh 
when it tries to hardlink every tool to a wrapper that was not built for 
my cross setup (in the previous case).

I would have liked to include a patch, but I cannot make heads or tails 
of this wrapper business, are wrappers even needed for standard cross 
toolchains?  If so, then maybe there should be a default *) in the 
CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER case.

Any ideas?

Regards
  /Jocke


--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: crosstool-ng: No CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER set when building a standard CROSS...

[Yann E. MORIN]

Hello Joachim!
All,

On Sunday 06 September 2009 10:18:27 Joachim Nilsson wrote:
> Using crosstool-ng I selected to build a standard cross toolchain using 
> GCC 4.4.1. To that end I imported some gcc patches from buildroot and 
> everything seemed fine.  Until I got to the final part of the build.
[--SNIP--]
> It seems that in scripts/build/internals.sh if CT_WRAPPER_NEEDED is set 
> it also needs CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER to be set, but for my standard cross 
> setup the CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER is not set in the .config file.

My bad. I just tested the canadian case for the wrapper. I'll fix that
asap...

> I would have liked to include a patch, but I cannot make heads or tails 
> of this wrapper business, are wrappers even needed for standard cross 
> toolchains?  If so, then maybe there should be a default *) in the 
> CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER case.

Yes they are. Look at docs/overview.txt, it's explained at length
in there... As for the patch, I'm already on it, don't worry.

Thanks for spotting the issue.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +0/33 662376056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| --==< ^_^ >==-- `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
`------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'



--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: crosstool-ng: No CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER set when building a standard CROSS...

[Joachim Nilsson]

Hi Yann!

On 09/06/2009 10:52 AM, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> On Sunday 06 September 2009 10:18:27 Joachim Nilsson wrote:
>> I would have liked to include a patch, but I cannot make heads or tails
>> of this wrapper business, are wrappers even needed for standard cross
>> toolchains?  If so, then maybe there should be a default *) in the
>> CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER case.
> Yes they are. Look at docs/overview.txt, it's explained at length

Sorry, I actually knew that, can't believe I forgot. And I should've 
known better and RTFM first.

> in there... As for the patch, I'm already on it, don't worry.

Heh, it seems I managed to reply with a patch just after you sent yours. 
  It'll be interesting to see your fix. :)

Thank you for your, as always, impressively quick replies!

Regards
  /Jocke

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: crosstool-ng: No CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER set when building a standard CROSS...

[Joachim Nilsson]

Replying to my own question ... hopefully not HTML this time.

On 09/06/2009 10:18 AM, Joachim Nilsson wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> Using crosstool-ng I selected to build a standard cross toolchain 
> using GCC 4.4.1. To that end I imported some gcc patches from 
> buildroot and everything seemed fine.  Until I got to the final part 
> of the build.
>
> [EXTRA]    Installing toolchain wrappers
> [ALL  ]    ln: accessing `.armeb-redfox-linux-uclibc-wrapper': No such 
> file or directory
> [ERROR]    Build failed in step 'Cleaning-up the toolchain's directory'
> [ERROR]    Error happened in 
> '/home/INTRANET/joachim/crosstool-ng/scripts/functions' in function 
> 'CT_DoExecLog' (line unknown, sorry)
> [ERROR]          called from 
> '/home/INTRANET/joachim/crosstool-ng/scripts/build/internals.sh' at 
> line # 76 in function 'do_finish'
> [ERROR]          called from 
> '/home/INTRANET/joachim/crosstool-ng/scripts/crosstool-NG.sh' at line 
> # 544 in function 'main'
>
> It seems that in scripts/build/internals.sh if CT_WRAPPER_NEEDED is 
> set it also needs CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER to be set, but for my standard 
> cross setup the CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER is not set in the .config file.
>
> The build fails a couple of lines later in scripts/build/internals.sh 
> when it tries to hardlink every tool to a wrapper that was not built 
> for my cross setup (in the previous case).
>
> I would have liked to include a patch, but I cannot make heads or 
> tails of this wrapper business, are wrappers even needed for standard 
> cross toolchains?  If so, then maybe there should be a default *) in 
> the CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER case.
>
> Any ideas?

Maybe the attached patch is what's missing?

Regards
  /Jocke

Signed-off-by Joachim Nilsson<jocke@vmlinux.org>

-- 

diff -r 439a6b292917 config/toolchain.in
--- a/config/toolchain.in    Fri Sep 04 17:27:16 2009 +0200
+++ b/config/toolchain.in    Sun Sep 06 10:47:14 2009 +0200
@@ -285,10 +285,7 @@

  endif # CROSS_NATIVE || CANADIAN

-# Kept as a separate if block, even if it could go into the above block,
-# because it seems better. No real reason, only that it seems right...
-if CANADIAN
-
+# Necessary for all types of toolchains, at least for gcc > 4.3.x
  comment "Host specifics"

  choice
@@ -322,6 +319,4 @@
      default "script" if TOOLS_WRAPPER_SCRIPT
      default "exec"   if TOOLS_WRAPPER_EXEC

-endif # CROSS_NATIVE || CANADIAN
-
  endmenu


--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: crosstool-ng: No CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER set when building a standard CROSS...

[Yann E. MORIN]

Joachim,
All,

On Sunday 06 September 2009 10:53:10 Joachim Nilsson wrote:
> Replying to my own question ... hopefully not HTML this time.

;-)

> Maybe the attached patch is what's missing?

Yep, that's the base, and is enough to /fix/ the issue.
But in fact there's a litle bit to it that I'd like to fix, especially
the menuconfig order: it would be better if the user does not have to
go back and forth in the menuconfig to set options. In this case, setting
the comp libs would uncover anoption at the begining, and the user may
miss it. Moving the choice down into the comp lib menu will be better.

Thanks,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +0/33 662376056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| --==< ^_^ >==-- `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
`------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'



--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: crosstool-ng: No CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER set when building a standard CROSS...

[Joachim Nilsson]

On 09/06/2009 11:07 AM, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> But in fact there's a litle bit to it that I'd like to fix, especially
> the menuconfig order: it would be better if the user does not have to
> go back and forth in the menuconfig to set options. In this case, setting
> the comp libs would uncover anoption at the begining, and the user may
> miss it. Moving the choice down into the comp lib menu will be better.

That's a good idea, I was actually quite confused by this initially.

But I can see the logic in having it with the toolchain options as well, 
but that same logic could also be applied to saying that it should be 
with the C Compiler options.  I.e., when selecting a gcc >= 4.3.x ...

... maybe the companion libraries section should appear as a subsection 
of the C Compiler menu when selecting a gcc >= 4.3.x?

Sorry if I muddling the water here.

Regards
  /Jocke

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: crosstool-ng: No CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER set when building a standard CROSS...

[Yann E. MORIN]

Joachim,
All,

On Sunday 06 September 2009 11:20:50 Joachim Nilsson wrote:
> On 09/06/2009 11:07 AM, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > But in fact there's a litle bit to it that I'd like to fix, especially
> > the menuconfig order: it would be better if the user does not have to
> > go back and forth in the menuconfig to set options. In this case, setting
> > the comp libs would uncover anoption at the begining, and the user may
> > miss it. Moving the choice down into the comp lib menu will be better.
> That's a good idea, I was actually quite confused by this initially.

Yeah, I've done some re-ordering recently, so that should not happen
any longer.

> But I can see the logic in having it with the toolchain options as well, 
> but that same logic could also be applied to saying that it should be 
> with the C Compiler options.  I.e., when selecting a gcc >= 4.3.x ...
> ... maybe the companion libraries section should appear as a subsection 
> of the C Compiler menu when selecting a gcc >= 4.3.x?

(Some of) the companion libs can be used by binutils and gdb as well, so
it can not be a sub-menu of gcc. It's just that gcc _requires_ them, while
binutils and gdb _can_ use them, but don't _require_ them.

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +0/33 662376056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| --==< ^_^ >==-- `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
`------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'



--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

Re: crosstool-ng: No CT_TOOLS_WRAPPER set when building a standard CROSS...

[Joachim Nilsson]

On 09/06/2009 11:41 AM, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> On Sunday 06 September 2009 11:20:50 Joachim Nilsson wrote:
>> ... maybe the companion libraries section should appear as a subsection
>> of the C Compiler menu when selecting a gcc>= 4.3.x?
> (Some of) the companion libs can be used by binutils and gdb as well, so
> it can not be a sub-menu of gcc. It's just that gcc _requires_ them, while
> binutils and gdb _can_ use them, but don't _require_ them.

Ah, I see, thanks for the info!

I've got my Xscale 4.4.1 crossgcc working now, so I'll evaluate the 
buildroot patches and soon get back to the list with the results.

Regards
  /Jocke

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq