I have a number C/C++ project which must be compiled for arm64 (aarch64) Linux platform, then packet into both RPM and DEB packages, then published. Creating and publishing Linux software for arm64.
How to build aarch64 binaries using amd64 Linux host system?
I have the following linux
katya7#katya7-comp:~$ cat /etc/os-release
NAME="KDE neon"
VERSION="5.25"
ID=neon
ID_LIKE="ubuntu debian"
PRETTY_NAME="KDE neon User - 5.25"
VARIANT="User Edition"
VARIANT_ID=user
VERSION_ID="20.04"
HOME_URL="https://neon.kde.org/"
SUPPORT_URL="https://neon.kde.org/"
BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.kde.org/"
LOGO=start-here-kde-neon
PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/privacy-policy"
VERSION_CODENAME=focal
UBUNTU_CODENAME=focal
Have you tried cross compiling? There is a nice blog post on how to do cross compiling for aarch64 on a build platform with a different architecture. https://jensd.be/1126/linux/cross-compiling-for-arm-or-aarch64-on-debian-or-ubuntu
I try to compile a go program on my Linux desktop (Linux desktop 4.10.0-28-generic #32-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jun 30 05:32:18 UTC 2017 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux), go version go version go1.8.3 linux/amd64 to arm:
$ GOPATH=/home/xrfang/git/hermes/ GOARM=7 GOARCH=arm go build .
the executable is generated, but seems NOT ARMv7:
$ file hermes
hermes: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped
It shows EABI5. How can I cross-compile to ARMv7? Is there anything missing on my Linux Desktop so that the cross-compile fallback to a lower ARM version?
Thanks.
I believe, it is not ARMv5. I was trying to do the same on MAC OS and 'file' command on Mac is saying v7, but the 'file' command on Linux don't. However, I do know that v7 has some good improvements and may boost the performance of your program.
But, that is out of scope of this question and you may need to dig deeper into what you're doing and why a performance improvement is expected.
All I can say is, it is compiled for v7.
The problem
We are trying to compile the spi_slave code on a raspberry pi. We used the native gcc compiler and the compile runs without any errors.
The problem is when I try to run the output:
/home/pi/spi_slave# ./build/output.elf
Segmentation fault
/home/pi/spi_slave# ./build/kernel.img
bash: ./build/kernel.img: cannot execute binary file
Tried to download the arm-none-eabi compiler from cambridge but it wont run:
/home/pi/spi_slave# ../arm-2008q3/bin/arm-none-eabi-gcc
bash: ../arm-2008q3/bin/arm-none-eabi-gcc: cannot execute binary file
Sourcecode
The code we are trying to compile is: http://tylernichols.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/raspberry_pi_bare_metal_spi_slave.zip
The only change we did was in the makefile, added a # in front of the ARMGNU var
#ARMGNU = arm-none-eabi
Environement
# uname -a
Linux raspberrypi 3.6.11+ #371 PREEMPT Thu Feb 7 16:31:35 GMT 2013 armv6l GNU/Linux
What am I doing wrong?
We have tried to find answers on google and stackoverflow for hours now without success. :/
arm-none-eabi is a non-linux compiler. It is for bare-metal applications. The difference is in the C library. However, gcc is intimately linked to the C library for normal compiles.
Then there is the code. It is not written for Linux. It is written for a bare-metal application. You need to load and run the code from the Raspberry-Pi boot loader (berryboot?) without Linux.
You can use the ARM Linux compiler to create code for a bare-metal application. However, it is probably easier for you to find a newlib compiler that is targeted for the Raspberry Pi. You can search for one on the web or try to build one yourself.
See: How to build gcc for Raspberry Pi and Bare-metal gcc.
I am trying to compile Linux kernel with -O0 flag for debugging (to disable optimization like inline functions support in GCC otherwise I am getting random jumps/holes in stack-frames).
I did some googling and found few related posts but they were not very encouraging for this idea. Some of the said its not possible, others suggested that it may not be very useful. I also saw few patches (for ARM) floating in KGDB mailing list. Now I am little confused. Just wondering if anyone tried compiling latest kernel with -O0 flag.
My Linux version: Linux 3.0.1-rt11-svn9237 #2 PREEMPT RT Fri Dec 21 09:58:42 IST 2012 armv7l GNU/Linux
My GCC version: arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc-4.3.3
I have trouble understanding the gcc compiler provided by OSX 10.6 snow leopard, mainly because of my lack of experience with 64 bits environments.
$ cat >foo.c
main() {}
$ gcc foo.c -o foo
$ file foo
foo: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
$ lipo -detailed_info foo
input file foo is not a fat file
Non-fat file: foo is architecture: x86_64
However, my architecture is seen as an intel i386 type (I have one of the latest Intel Core2 duo MacBook)
$ arch
i386
and the compiler targets i686-apple-darwin10
$ gcc --version
i686-apple-darwin10-gcc-4.2.1 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5646)
Of course, if I compile 32 bits I get a 32 bit executable.
$ gcc -m32 foo.c -o foo
$ file foo
foo: Mach-O executable i386
but I don't get the big picture. The default setup for the compiler is to produce x86_64 executables, even if I have arch saying I have a 32 bit machine (why? Core2 is 64); even if (I guess) I am running a 32 bit kernel; even if I have a compiler targeting the i686-apple-darwin platform. Why? How can they run ? Should I compile 64 or 32 ?
This question is due to my attempt to compile gcc 4.2.3 on the mac, but I am having a bunch of issues with gmp, mpfr and libiberty getting (in some cases) compiled for x86_64. Should I compile everything x86_64 ? If so, what's the target (not i686-apple-darwin10 I guess)?
Thanks for the help
The default compiler on Snow Leopard is gcc4.2, and its default architecture is x86_64. The typical way to build Mac software is to build multiple architectures in separate passes, then use lipo to combine the results. (lipo only compiles single-arch files into a multiple-arch file, or strips archs out of a multi-arch file. It has no utility on single-arch files, as you discovered.)
The bitness of the compiler has nothing to do with anything. You can build 32-bit binaries with a 64-bit compiler, and vice versa. (What you think is the "target" of the compiler is actually its executable, which is different.)
The bitness of the kernel has nothing to do with anything. You can build and run 64-bit binaries when booted on a 32-bit kernel, and vice versa.
What matters is when you link, whether you have the appropriate architectures for linking. You can't link 32-bit builds against 64-bit binaries or vice versa. So the important thing is to see what the architectures of your link libraries are, make sure they're coherent, then build your binary of the same architecture so you can link against the libraries you have.
i686-apple-darwin10.0.0 contains an x86_64 folder which is not understood by most versions of autotools. In other words, I'd say that the gcc compiler is unfortunately nothing short of a joke on Snow Leopard. Why you would bundle 32-bit and 64-bit libraries into i686-apple-darwin10.0.0 is beyond me.
$ ls /usr/lib/gcc
i686-apple-darwin10 powerpc-apple-darwin10
You need to change all your autotools configure files to handle looking in *86-darwin directories and then looking for 64-bit libraries I'd imagine.
As with your system, my mac mini says its i386 even though its obviously using a 64-bit platform, again another mistake since its distributed with 64-bit hardware.
$arch
i386
Apple toolchains support multiple architectures. If you want to create a fat binary that contains x86 and x86_64 code, then you have to pass the parameters -arch i386 -arch x86_64 to gcc. The compiler will compile your code twice for both platforms in one go.
Adding -arch i386 -arch x86_64 to CFLAGS may allow you to compile gmp, mpfr, and whatnot for multiple archs in one go. Building libusb that way worked for me.
This answer is wrong, but see comments below
The real question is... how did you get a 32-bit version of OSX? I wasn't aware that Snow Leopard had a 32-bit version, as all of Apple's Intel chips are Core 2 or Xeon, which support the x86_64 architecture.
Oh, and Snow Leopard only works on Intel chips.
Edit: Apparently Snow Leopard starts in 32-bit mode.