We want to use a single gcc for multiple targets. Is it possible to build from source for supporting multiple targets?
The answer is no, you cannot do this with gcc. You can use some cross compilers to achieve this goal.
But if you really need to do this, you can use clang compiler. Here is the link:
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/CrossCompilation.html
Adding answer to the Gabriel. All architecture what you mentioned above are different CPU's.
It's not possible to generate different binaries with the gcc compiler.
You need to have different toolchains for each compiler that produce corresponding compatible code.
x86, PPC and ARM are the different machines. You cant run the code which you build using host toolchains.
Below provided reference use machine specific toolchains not host-gcc. This is very cumbersome and not straightforward approach.
For curiosity, you can have a look at the bitbake, parallel build of multiple machines
I'll also add that to have a useful toolchain you also need to build other components besides GCC. Components like an assembler and linker (from binutils for example) and a C library (e.g. glibc, musl, newlib etc). Each such component needs to be configured for a specific target
Related
I'm currently working on a rather generic communication stack. It gets bytes in on one end, parses the packet and calls a callback.
I want to have this stack in a static library (i.e. libcommstack.a).
The library is aimed towards embedded ARM Cortex-M devices. At the moment we have specified that at least a Cortex-M3 should be used (but it should also work for an M4 or M33).
Right now I'm integrating it into another application to verify that linking it is possible. In the future the idea is that we will ship this .a file to customers so they can build their application around it, without having direct access to our sources (to encapsulate our IP).
We are using GCC ARM v7.2.1 to compile both the library and the application that is linked to it.
The application I'm trying to integrate it with is compiled for a Cortex M33 with -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu-fpv6-sp-d16.
The code for the library does not use any floating points and is compiled using -march=archv7-m (both have the -mthumb flag).
Linking seemed to all go well, until I actually called a function from the lib. At that point the linker starts to complain:
application.elf uses VFP register arguments, libcommstack.a(somefile.c.obj) does not
failed to merge target specific data of file libcommstack.a(somefile.c.obj)
Since I'm not using floating points in the library and I don't know (upfront) if the target application does or does not have an FPU (or even uses floats), I'm not sure how to approach this.
I figured there would be two approaches:
Compile a single version of the lib, using an instruction set that all of the microcontrollers understand. I was hoping that this would be the case with ARMv7 (although I'm not yet 100% confident that the M23/M33 also support this).
Compile a lot of different libs for the different flavors based on the different architectures, FPU, etc.
As you can imagine, I would prefer to keep it simple and go for option 1, but I'm not sure how to "convince" the linker to link these two (or perhaps how to convince the compiler NOT to care about floating points for the lib).
Does anyone know if option 1 is feasible and how it can be achieved?
If it is not feasible, what would be the variables to keep in mind to determine the different build flavors?
Does anyone know if option 1 is feasible
Well, feasible, probably.
how it can be achieved?
Get all the processors you want to support and determine the instructions sets available on all these processors. Then compile for that instruction set.
But, please don't, that is a workaround.
If it is not feasible, what would be the variables to keep in mind to determine the different build flavors?
Gcc has something like "multilib profiles". See arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib output. If you have newlib installed, you can go to /usr/arm-none-eabi/lib/thumb/ and see the directories there - newlib is compiled for each profile and installs separate library for it and different library is picked up depending on configuration. Compile for each of those profiles, and package your library by putting libraries in proper /usr/arm-none-eabi/lib/proper/directory/here and compiler will pick them up by itself (see gcc -v output for library search paths). For an example search newlib sources where it happens, can't find it. (Here's my example). With cmake as a backend as a example you could compile and install as follows:
arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib |
while IFS=';' read -r dir opts; do
cmake -B builddir CMAKE_C_FLAGS="$opts" CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR="$dir"
cmake --build builddir
cmake --install builddir --prefix "/usr/arm-none-eabi/"
done
GCC is a compiler collection that generates machine code from different programming languages. For that you have to compile the compiler to run on your architecture and operating system. But you also have to define what kind of machine code and file format is generated.
Now my questions:
Is the output file of GCC only configurable at compilation time of GCC?
And can GCC be compiled so that it supports multiple architectures and file formats?
gcc and binutils are designed to build for one architecture/family at a time. So if you build them as a cross compiler for ARM then you cannot build mips, but you can have multiple/many installations so you can also build one to target mips and use that one.
clang/llvm if when you build you don't tell it not to it will build a tool for all targets it knows. This tool will get you up to the object level for any of the supported targets with the one tool, but linking is another story you need to tell it to builds its linker (and then I don't remember if the linker will support any target or one). You can use binutils to assemble/link for clang/llvm (and then you definitely have a single target assembler/linker).
Ubuntu 16.04 comes with GCC 5.4 which does support c++11 and it is the default compiler. By default c++11 is not enabled in that particular version of GCC.
My intent is to use some of the binary libraries (not header only) from their repository (e.g. boost). In my projects I will enable c++ 11.
How were c++ libraries from the repository compiled? Is it possible to use them with c++ 11 enabled? I know that c++ libraries can be called from different languages (Java, Pythons, C# etc) by hiding all c++ stuff behind plain C interface. With boost it is not a case. If a certain function returns me a string or a vector or anything from STL then it is a problem. AFAIK STL objects binary representation depends on compiler flags (eg. std=c++11).
Thank you.
Which exact libraries are you talking about?
If you are talking about the standard library, libstdc++ is a part of gcc. It is always okay to link it no matter which standard you compile at. gcc also made a decision to include ABI tags, so that they can be ABI compatible with code compiled at C++11 and pre C++11. See for instance TC's really nice answer to a question I asked here:
Is this simple C++ program using <locale> correct?
If by
How were c++ libraries from the repository compiled?
you mean, how are all of the C++ libraries in the ubuntu repositories compiled, the answer is, it may be different for each one.
For instance if you want to use libfreetype6-dev or libsdl2-dev, these are C libraries, they will be okay to link to no matter what standard you target.
If you want to use libsilly-dev from CEGUI, that is a C++ library, and it is usually best to use the exact same compiler for your project and the C++ lib that you are linking to. If it appears in ubuntu repository, you can assume it was built with the default g++ version that ubuntu is shipping. If you need to use a different compiler, it's probably best to build the C++ lib yourself -- in general C++ is not ABI stable across different compilers, or even different versions of the same compiler.
If you want to use compiled boost libraries, it's probably best to use the libs they give you and use the compiler they give you. If you only use header-only boost, then the compiler doesn't matter since you don't actually have to link with something they built. So you then have more flexibility with respect to compilers.
Often, if you need to use C++ libraries, it's best to integrate their build system into yours so that it can be easily rebuilt from source and you only have to configure the compiler once. (At least in my experience.) This can save a lot of time when you decide to upgrade compilers later. If you use cmake then it's often feasible, but sometimes this can be hard, especially if you have a lot of C++ dependencies. If you don't use cmake, well, many libraries use cmake and it won't be that easy to integrate them this way. cmake is still kind of a pain anyways, so this might not be such a loss.
I am currently working on the toolchain for a processor that has been developed at my university. The processor is closely based on OpenRISC (orpsocv2 has been used as a baseline). Building programs for that platform requires that some custom instructions are added to the binary. I already implemented tools that modify assembly code accordingly (utilizing regular expressions). However, I am looking for a way to integrate it with the GNU toolchain of OpenRISC.
A regular toolchain consists of the following tools:
preprocessor -> compiler -> assembler -> linker
I need my adaptations to be integrated somewhere after compilation (because I require information about the basic blocks that will be present in the binary) and before linking (because afterwards things get messy when you try to change addresses).
Now my question: Is there an easy way to add another tool between the compiler and the assembler of the GNU toolchain?
I don't want to do that manually in the Makefile, because I would like to have the tools as compatible as possible to existing software projects.
So far, I haven't been able to find anything related in the GCC documentation or the web.
This question must apply to so few people...
I am busy mrigrating my ARM C project from Winarm GCC 4.1.2 to Yagarto GCC 4.3.3.
I did not expect any differences and both compile my project happily using the same makefile and .ld files.
However while the Winarm version runs the Yagarto version doesn't. The processor is an Atmel AT91SAM7S.
Any ideas on where to look would be most welcome. i am thinking that my assumption that a makefile is a makefile is incorrect or that the .ld file for Winarm is not applicable to Yagarto.
Since they are both GCC toolchains and presumably use the same linker they must surely be compatable.
TIA
Ends.
I agree that the gcc's and the other binaries (ld) should be the same or close enough for you not to notice the differences. but the startup code whether it is your or theirs, and the C library can make a big difference. Enough to make the difference between success and failure when trying to use the same source and linker script. Now if this is 100% your code, no libraries or any other files being used from WinARM or Yagarto then this doesnt make much sense. 3.x.x to 4.x.x yes I had to re-spin my linker scripts, but 4.1.x to 4.3.x I dont remember having problems there.
It could also be a subtle difference in compiler behavior: code generation does change from gcc release to gcc release, and if your code contains pieces which are implementation-dependent for their semantics, it might well bite you in this way. Memory layouts of data might change, for example, and code that accidentally relied on it would break.
Seen that happen a lot of times.
Try it with different optimization options in the compile and see if that makes a difference.
Both WinARM and YAGARTO are based on gcc and should treat ld files equally. Also both are using gnu make utility - make files will be processed the same way. You can compare the two toolchains here and here.
If you are running your project with an OCD, then there is a difference between the implementation of the OpenOCD debugger. Also the commands sent to the debugger to configure it could be different.
If you are producing an hex file, then this could be different as the two toolchains are not using the same version of newlib library.
In order to be on the safe side, make sure that in both cases the correct binutils are first in the path.
If I were you I'd check the compilation/linker flags - specifically the defaults. It is very common for different toolchains to have different default ABIs or FP conventions. It might even be compiling using an instruction set extension that isn't supported by your CPU.