While working for just one month with the MPLABX5.5 + XC32 3.01 I've already had 3 separate instances where code compiled incorrectly, causing my program to fail after either the stack or frame pointer began using an incorrect address. I would like to dump these tools and try something else as tracking down compiler errors is sucking up too much of my time. Is there anything else available that I can use to work with a PIC32MM? Even access to a different compiler than XC32 might help.
I would like to do the same thing. Maybe we can collect the best options for how to get there, as after many many tries, I haven't yet been successful. As one starting point, I'd also like to be able to recompile xc32-gcc from source to understand exactly what it's doing, and to be able to compile xc32 binaries for other architectures (like, as insane as it may sound, I'd like to compile some code for the pic32mm platform with clang or gcc running on a raspberry pi.)
I would love to be able to even just compile xc32-gcc from source. I know this is possible, but I've not been successful. Some links and starts:
https://github.com/zeha/xc32
This seems to be the most recent grouping of source I've found, but I haven't yet figured out how to compile it.
ChipKit is cited a lot, but, I haven't gotten to the bottom of getting that to build for me either. There are numerous projects here, and I'm not sure how they all fit together yet:
https://github.com/chipKIT32
I suspect somebody (maybe someone who will see this post) knows the formula or script or docker file, or whatever to make this simple.
https://gitlab.com/spicastack/pic32-parts-free
This project seems close to what we're talking about, but, the
recommended way to install is with podman and gentoo. I'm not a
gentoo person (yet?), and the docker version failed for me. It's
probably a simple fix to the dockerfile for a gentoo person, but.. I
didn't get there yet. (I did try installing gentoo and started down
the path but holy cow, talk about being down a rabbit hole when what
I'm trying to do is get a pic cross-compiler working.. when emerge on my new gentoo install failed with a python error, I gave up.)
https://github.com/andeha/Twinbeam
This project also says some of the "right things" about building pic32 code using llvm, and has references to llvm2pic32 in this project: https://github.com/andeha/Sprinkle
I've also not yet managed to get this to make viable intel hex files that I can use on a pic just yet, but there's promise.
Use clang/llvm to generate code. I think it will compile C and generate mips out of the box and I've gotten that far, but I can't get it to link and produce a valid hex file yet. The linker scripts from microchip seem sort of ok, but the hex files end up putting the code in the wrong place, I think. I should probably put together a blinky-light example and try to push it farther, and share it with others to figure out what the deal is, but even stepping one step further back and just trying to get a super simple mips assembly program to get linked and be uploadable to a PIC32MM part would be a great success to me.
Maybe others have better references and links?
Related
I have been trying to go through this tutorial and I always get stuck in the second build of GCC when making the cross-toolchain. It errors out saying that I am attempting to call a poisoned calloc. I have gone through several patches and what they all seem to do is just #include the offending system header (in this case pthread.h) earlier in the source code. Since there are no patches for my particular problem, I have gone ahead and emulated their solutions in my case. While this works (compilation now fails because I don't have some ISL files) it feels like a hack, and I suspect that the root problem is further back in the build.
Thus, I wanted to ask:
Why are symbols poisoned? Why would the GCC maintainers want some symbols not to be used?
What are the general causes for this problem? Is it really just a bug or is this a problem that arises in more general situations?
I am more interested in the generalities of this issue, but if it helps, I am using the latest release of Alpine Linux (with gcc 12.2.1) trying to compile gcc 11.2
.0 for the same target architecture as the host (x86-64).
I asked a question and got a sketch of how to open and patch a Fedora package. See How to modify a Fedora package and fix bugs
What was missing was how to work on the package. I cannot build it outside of the chroot, apparently because of a problem with Qt (The package uses Qt3). I need to know how to get into the details of makes and tests because I want software that is actually part of the SRPM, but does not make it into the distributed RPM -- it is only used to test the package during building.
So how do I find the chroot, get into it, mess around, and build some of the messed-around bits, fix what I just broke and try again, and maybe use the final result outside the chroot? Or maybe there's a completely different way.
None of the docs I've seen get into these dirty little bits. And it is complicated by my inability to do a build outside the chroot.
In the end, I'll probably construct an SRPM (for my own use) that just makes the test program (a command-line version of the graphic program that the original package is all about). But I'll need to work on it quite a bit before that's ready to go.
Probably it's good enough if someone can show me how and where to get into the chroot and do commands like 'make', then use the results outside the chroot.
I'm trying to get the cross compiler for Windows RT beside Visual Studio. Unfortunately there is no MinGW-ARM so I have to do it by myself. I pretty much know what I want: PE32+, Thumb2 code always. Pretty sure that GCC can handle both so I thought it will be easy.
Apparently I'm wrong: I can't find a working target. Since I'd like to have MinGW, I chose "arm-w64-mingw32" as my target and configure of GAS told me it doesn't know what output format is. Also tried "arm-windows-pep", GCC didn't know what this is.
I took look at both configures, and I can hardly understand the logic in their code since there is not easy way to debug the shell script under Windows. Can somebody tells me the steps to add a new target?
I'm trying to build apple's opensource libc (from http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/Libc/Libc-763.11/) on my OS X 10.6.8 laptop. This is in an attempt to essentially get a locally generated replica of /usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib, which I intend to experiment on further.
I see a couple basic roadblocks though (unless, obviously, I'm missing something basic):
No instructions on how to do the build. There are a couple of Makefiles in the URL I reference above, but they fail to build when I try to do straightforward makes:
$make -f Makefile
Makefile:14: *** missing separator. Stop.
I suspect the source available for download is incomplete. Not incomplete in the sense that Apple isn't revealing all of the changes, but incomplete in the sense that there are source files that were (presumably) not modified by Apple, so isn't included in the collection. For example, I don't see the implementation of the "open" call (which, in the gnu libc hierarchy, is available at io/open.c)
The closest reference I could find after some googling was this: http://www.projectosx.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1922&st=0&p=12457&#entry12457 but it still isn't close enough for my taste!
Any pointers?
Thanks!
Only some general pointers (although some links are discussing older OSX versions):
http://darwinbuild.macosforge.org/trac/ticket/6
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-projects/darwin/overlay/sys-libs/libc-darwin/libc-darwin-391.ebuild?view=markup&sortby=log
http://althenia.net/wiki/darwin#standard_library_libc
http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/CROSS-COMPILE-GUTS
http://www.raccoonfink.com/fink/darwin-cross/
There is a bug in RHEL5's gcc-4.3.2 with which we are stuck. As a work-around we have extracted the missing object and put it in an object file. Adding this object file to every link makes the problem go away.
While adding it directly to LDFLAGS seems like a good solution, this doesn't work since e.g. libtool cannot cope with non-la files in there.
A slightly more portable solution seems to be to directly patch the gcc spec to add this to every link. I came up with
*startfile:
+ %{shared-libgcc:%{O*:%{!O0:/PATH/TO/ostream-inst.o}}}
where ostream-inst.o is added to the list of startfiles used in the link when compiling a shared library with optimizations.
Trying to compile boost with this spec gives some errors though since its build directly sets some objects with ld's --startgroup/--endgroup.
How should I update that spec to cover that case as well, or even better, all cases?
Go through this URL Specifying subprocesses and the switches to pass to them and GCC Command Options
If this help you, thats great.
I know this is not the answer you want to hear (since you specified otherwise in your question), but you are running into trouble here and are likely to run into more since your compiler is buggy. You should find a way of replacing it, since you'll find yourself writing even more work-around code the next time some obscure build system comes along. There's not only bjam out there.
Sorry I can't help you more. You might try simply writing a .lo file by hand (it's a two-liner, after all) and insert it into your LDFLAGS.
If it is a bug of GCC 4.3, did you try to build (by compiling from sources) and use a newer GCC. GCC 4.6.2 is coming right now. Did you consider using it?