Re: Selecting gcc version

Chris Tapp

On 25 Jun 2012, at 23:05, Khem Raj wrote:

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Chris Tapp <opensource@...> wrote:

On 25 Jun 2012, at 22:52, Khem Raj wrote:

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Chris Tapp <opensource@...> wrote:
Yes, it's 3.1.9 and it does compile. But the latest commits don't run when I build them (system displays a 'failed to execute kernel' error screen). Paul Eggleton has failed to get any to work when built using 4.7.0 (current master), so it does look as if this is compiler-related.

None of the commits appear to be likely to cause a change from 'good' to 'bad'.
can you tell me which commit is last good ?
yes there are interaction between kernel and compiler
sometimes kernel code has wrong expectation of gcc and when it gets
fixed in gcc things dont work so in such cases kernel is fixed in some
case kernel may expose real gcc bug too. Cant tell much unless its narrowed down

Last one I've got to work is

I've opened an issue at which also shows the firmware version that I know works, but that's probably not important here.
well there are options in .config being changed that can mean that now
you could be waking up the sleeping dinosaurs.
Scary! (As my daughters would say).

I think I've got it building under 4.5.1 (Edison, as that was easier to do for a quick test).

Well, that proves it's not the compiler. Still fails to boot, even though the toolchain that's supposed to work is 4.5.1. Does 32-bit / 64-bit host make a difference?

Chris Tapp


Join to automatically receive all group messages.