Re: Building SID

["Michael Ambrus" <ambrmi09@gmail.com>]

On 2/26/07, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 08:37:41PM +0100, Michael Ambrus wrote:
> > I'm new to sid and I'm having some problems building the project from
> > CVS sources.
>
> Welcome!

Thanx :)

>
> > My first attempt was with a cross-compiler which worked. except that
> > the I couldn't get the simulation to work properly (when setting CPU
> > registers in the simulated code and then queried the same with GDB,
> > the registers would still have the value 0).
>
> Are you sure you had gdb connected properly (target remote ...) and
> all?  Which target?

Pretty much. The target tried was i386-hixs-elf (hixs is a layer that
replaces the syscalls with "hooked" versions - i.e. function
pointers). I haven't worked with x86 for years, so it might be me
forgetting something (protected mode stuff?).

I just swapped the target from an existing PowerPC set-up because I'm
currently in an area not strictly architecture dependant and I needed
something faster than the remote GDB box I'm currently using.

> > I thought if not setting --target, it would make it work better.
>
> Actually, that should not improve this situation.

yes, I figured that too.

>
> > The documentation says that if --target is not set, sid will try to
> > build all the available CPU's.
>
> That's correct.
>
> > What I'm not clear about is if one needs a cross compilers or not, and
> > in the case one does - would that be for every possible CPU sid
> > supports?
>
> No, we don't run cross-compilers during a sid build.  Only in order to
> build programs that run on the various cpu models would one need them.
>

Cool.

> > [...]
> > A list of supported main architectures would be helpful.
>
> See the sid/components/CATALOG file.
>

OK, thanx.

> > Hers comes the lines where the build breaks:
> > make[4]: *** No rule to make target `sh64-elf-sid', needed by `all-am'.
> > The ChangeLog mentions  'sh-elf-sid,sh5-elf-sid,sh64-elf-sid: New
> > files' so I'm guessing the files were just not committed yet.
>
> That's probably right, it must be an oversight.
>
> - FChE
>
>

/Michael