Re: how much updating of "scripts/" directory from 2.6.21 to now?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>
>   i'm currently trying to do the documented (ARM cross-compile) build
> of a particular 2.6 source tree described here:
>
> http://www.embeddedarm.com/software/arm-linux-26-ts72xx.php
>
>   the instructions in question:
>
>    1.   Download and install (decompress) the cross-compiler on your
> Linux x86 PC
>    2. Download and install (decompress) the 2.6 Kernel source tree on
> your Linux x86 PC
>    3. Edit the Makefile at the Kernel root dir to point to the
> appropriate cross-compiler path
>    4. type “make ts72xx_defconfig”
>    5. type “make menuconfig” and edit the boot command line and other
> options of interest (optional)
>    6. type “make”
>
> which is fine except that the final make fails to compile thusly:
>
>   HOSTCC  scripts/mod/sumversion.o
> scripts/mod/sumversion.c: In function ‘get_src_version’:
> scripts/mod/sumversion.c:384: error: ‘PATH_MAX’ undeclared (first use
> in this function)
> scripts/mod/sumversion.c:384: error: (Each undeclared identifier is
> reported only once
> scripts/mod/sumversion.c:384: error: for each function it appears in.)
> scripts/mod/sumversion.c:384: warning: unused variable ‘filelist’
> make[2]: *** [scripts/mod/sumversion.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [scripts/mod] Error 2
> make: *** [scripts] Error 2
>
>   this isn't actually a big deal -- turns out that, given the newer
> gcc-4.3 *host* compiler i'm using, the file scripts/mod/sumversion.c's
> reference to PATH_MAX now needs to include <limits.h>.
>
>   so, i can do one of two things.  slowly tweak the host-compilable
> source under scripts to be buildable with gcc-4.3, or just plain throw
> caution to the winds and replace the *entire* older (2.6.21) scripts/
> directory with the current one (which means it will almost certainly
> compile with the native compiler).
>
>   i'm just about to try the latter, but does anyone know off-hand any
> obvious reasons why a much newer scripts/ directory can't be dropped
> in place of an older one?

  as a short followup, it appears that adding that single #include
line to that file was enough to get a build.  getting all worked up
over very little.  carry on.

rday
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
    Have classroom, will lecture.

http://crashcourse.ca                          Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================

[Index of Archives]     [Newbies FAQ]     [Linux Kernel Mentors]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [IETF Annouce]     [Git]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ACPI]
  Powered by Linux