Hi Mao Han, El vie., 17 ene. 2020 a las 3:35, Mao Han (<han_mao@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió: [..] > > > > I compiled the riscv toolchain as instructed, and applied your config > > (note: it was a full config, not a defconfig). The defconfig is: > > > > BR2_riscv=y > > BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL=y > > BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_PATH="/opt/riscv" > > BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_CUSTOM_PREFIX="$(ARCH)-unknown-linux-gnu" > > BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_HEADERS_5_0=y > > BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_CUSTOM_GLIBC=y > > BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_CXX=y > > BR2_TARGET_GENERIC_GETTY_PORT="ttyS0" > > BR2_SYSTEM_DHCP="eth0" > > BR2_LINUX_KERNEL=y > > BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_CUSTOM_VERSION=y > > BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_CUSTOM_VERSION_VALUE="5.1.12" > > BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_USE_ARCH_DEFAULT_CONFIG=y > > BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_EXT2=y > > BR2_TARGET_OPENSBI=y > > BR2_TARGET_OPENSBI_PLAT="qemu/virt" > > BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_QEMU=y > > BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_QEMU_SYSTEM_MODE=y > > > > Using this config, I do not see the same error as you. The toolchain > > seems to install correctly (note: later we will notice it does not; > > see below), but I do get an error later when busybox is compiled: > > > > The problem is originally occurs on a non-public released toolchain > with a sysroot folder structure like: > sysroot/lib64xthead/lp64d > and I tried to reproduce with a public RISC-V toolchain, and got > similar error weeks ago. > I retried with the toolchains yesterday, the error is only reproduced > with the internal one. There might be something wrong with my > previous operation. > [..] > > I'm not yet sure how this should be solved... > > There is another patch in the same thread: > [PATCH 2/2] toolchain: Get ld.so name if available > http://buildroot-busybox.2317881.n4.nabble.com/PATCH-1-2-package-toolchain-external-ensure-ARCH-LIB-DIR-exist-td243604.html#a244193 > Tried to get the corresponding ld.so name with certain configuration. > Thanks. Using this patch '[PATCH 2/2] toolchain: Get ld.so name if available' I actually can compile correctly. So, PATCH 1/2 is not actually needed. Do you agree that only PATCH 2/2 is required? If so I will perform a more thorough review of that patch. Thanks, Thomas
