Re: mips-elf with newlib

[Khem Raj <kraj at mvista dot com>]

Hi Michael,

You need to do the following steps.

1. make and install cross binutils (you are doing that alright)

2. Configure gcc with options you have and also add these --with-newlib 
--with-headers=[newlib-src]/newlib/libc/include

3. make a minimal gcc enough to build newlib (make all-gcc install-gcc)

4. Build and install newlib

5. Go back to your gcc build tree and now build and install complete gcc 
(make all install)

That should give you a functional toolchain with newlib.

HTH

Khem

Michael N. Moran said the following on 10/30/2006 8:28 AM:
> Hi folks,
>
> For the last couple of days, I have struggled in vain
> to produce a "working" mips-elf toolchain with newlib.
>
> Over the years I have managed to build GCC/binutil/newlib
> toolchains for several targets including ARM, PowerPC,
> 68K, H8, AVR and their variants. However, I am now in
> search of a big endian MIPS toolchain. No problem ...
> right? ;-)
>
> At this point I have tried various combinations of
> binutils, GCC and newlib versions.
>
> One constant that I have noticed is that I get errors
> that look like this as the xgcc cross compiler
> attempts to build libgcc and others:
>
> /tmp/ccZrU2HW.s:5713: Warning: size (177) out of range, ignored
>
> This warning comes from mips-elf-as as executed by GCC.
> Apparently, it does not like the ".size" directives
> produced by GCC?
>
> The GCC build finally dies with the following error
> while attempting to link libgcc.a :
>
> mips-elf-ranlib: ./libgcc.a: Malformed archive
> make[2]: *** [libgcc.a] Error 1
>
> After some investigation it seems that the following
> libgcc objects cause some object "code" to be produced
> that results in the "Malformed archive".
>
> _m16fix_truncdfsi.o
> _m16fix_truncsfsi.o
> _enable_execute_stack.o
>
> Using "_enable_execute_stack.o" as an example (from libgcc2.c),
> I can create and compile a C file with the "identical" function
> and the result produced no warning or Malformed archive error.
>
>
> I compare the actual "text" sections of these object
> files and they look identical, so I *assume* the difference lies
> in one of the other sections of the object file (e.g. debug info).
>
> I must be doing something wrong, but exactly what alludes me.
>
> *My binutils config looks like this:*
>
> ../binutils-2.17/configure \
>       --target=mips-elf \
>       --prefix=/tools/gnu/gcc/4.0.2/mips-elf
>
> nice -n 19 make CFLAGS="-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer" 2>&1 | tee make.temp
>
> *My GCC config looks like this:*
>
> ln -s
>     ../../../newlib/1.14.0/newlib-1.14.0/newlib ../gcc-4.0.2/newlib
>
> BINUTILS_PATH=/tools/gnu/gcc/4.0.2/mips-elf/bin
>
> export PATH=$PATH:$BINUTILS_PATH
>
> ../gcc-4.0.2/configure \
>       --target=mips-elf \
>       --prefix=/tools/gnu/gcc/4.0.2/mips-elf \
>       --with-newlib \
>       --disable-newlib-supplied-syscalls \
>       --enable-languages=c,c++
>
> nice -n 19 make CFLAGS="-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer" 2>&1 | tee make.temp
>
> Any clues appreciated.

--
Khem Raj <kraj@mvista.com>
MontaVista Software Inc.


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