[LinuxBIOS] help from ubuntu and FC6 experts
segher at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Jan 25 02:18:43 CET 2007
>> Building a cross-compilation toolchain on a fast machine takes
>> about 10 minutes, while building LinuxBIOS should take about
>> 2 seconds.
> Sure, but it can also take weeks to figure out that your toolchain
> is actually at fault
That's not my point -- it would be a huge regression (in
compile time) to include a toolchain build into the LB
>> Also, you might *want* to use a "non-default" toolchain.
> If you want to use a non-default toolchain, you should be in a
> position to decide how to deviate from the defaults, in which case,
> changing the toolchain build options should be really simple if you
> are at that level of expertise.
No, it's a lot easier to do if you don't have to deal with
the mechanics of an automated toolchain build thing at the
>> You might want to check out Dan Kegel's excellent "crosstool".
> Have used that extensively, and found it to be very good under
> certain circumstances, however, targeting new platforms already
> catered for by Buildroot and openwrt, it makes no sense since the
> toolchains are already in place.
Note though that both those systems *use* crosstool under the
>> I regularly build the Linux kernel on OSX -- all it takes are some
>> fixes to Linux itself, none toolchain related -- and certainly no
>> fixes to the toolchain itself.
> I am a newbie to OSX, so it is probably just growing pains!
> Nevertheless, I think OSX is really cool!
Heh. Try to build the Linux kernel on it. Hey, I think battle
scars are really cool, too! :-)
>>> This may be a resolution to the screwed toolchains supplied in
>>> certain distros.
>> That much is true, but it's a really heavy-handed solution.
> I think a solution nevertheless for people who are battling with
> broken toolchains - certainly this should not be a mandatory part
> of the build, but an option provided for those battling.
>> An option might be to include a script to build (and install)
>> a toolchain as an optional preparation step for building LB.
> Totally agree.
The best option probably is to feature something about this
really prominently really early in the build instructions.
>>> ever tried to tell RH that they introduced a bug in the compiler
>>> toolchain??? I think it would probably have fallen on deaf ears.
>> You should have tried though.
> I did frequently, and it fell on deaf ears - so much so that one of
> my corporate clients moved away from RH to SuSE.
You tried in their bugzilla? Wow.
In the case at hand -- the SSP thing -- I certainly can see why
they want to enable this stuff by default ("protecting their
not-all-that-knowledgeable customers against stack overrun
vulnerabilities"), but IMNSHO it's the wrong way to go about it,
and that's without the consideration that SSP doesn't really help
at all (except against total morons).
More information about the coreboot