[yocto] O_RDONLY ... missed bits/fcntl.h not as expected
I looked for
#define O_RDONLY 00
#define O_WRONLY 01
#define O_RDWR 02
and found it in : bits/fcntl-linux.h. According to this file it should not be
included, but bits/fcntl.h.
And it requires something like that:
A minimal contains just:
struct flock {...}
#ifdef __USE_LARGEFILE64
struct flock64 {...}
#endif
#include
But this doesn't finally include the fcntl-linux.h as expected. Am I doing
something wrong?
Regards
Arno
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] O_RDONLY ... missed bits/fcntl.h not as expected
Sure, sorry if this wasn't clear.
For me the chain is
includes (see below) and this doesn't include .
This is my SDK sysroot for cortexa9-hf.
Arno
/*
* Copyright (C) 2005-2011 by Wind River Systems, Inc.
*
* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
* of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
* in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
* to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
* copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
* furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
*
* The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
* all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
*
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
* IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
* AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
* LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
* OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
* THE SOFTWARE.
*
*/
#if defined (__arm__)
#define __MHWORDSIZE 32
#elif defined (__aarch64__) && defined ( __LP64__)
#define __MHWORDSIZE 64
#elif defined (__aarch64__)
#define __MHWORDSIZE 32
#else
#include
#if defined (__WORDSIZE)
#define __MHWORDSIZE __WORDSIZE
#else
#error "__WORDSIZE is not defined"
#endif
#endif
#if __MHWORDSIZE == 32
#ifdef _MIPS_SIM
#if _MIPS_SIM == _ABIO32
#include
#elif _MIPS_SIM == _ABIN32
#include
#else
#error "Unknown _MIPS_SIM"
#endif
#else /* _MIPS_SIM is not defined */
#include
#endif
#elif __MHWORDSIZE == 64
#include
#else
#error "Unknown __WORDSIZE detected"
#endif /* matches #if __WORDSIZE == 32 */
Gesendet: Montag, 12. März 2018 um 11:00 Uhr
Von: "Burton, Ross" <ross.bur...@intel.com>
An: "Arno Steffens" <s...@gmx.li>
Cc: Yocto-mailing-list <yocto@yoctoproject.org>
Betreff: Re: [yocto] O_RDONLY ... missed bits/fcntl.h not as expected
Can you explain what the actual problem is?
For me the include you'd use in programs includes which includes which defines O_RDONLY.
Ross
On 12 March 2018 at 07:32, Arno Steffens <s...@gmx.li> wrote:
I looked for
#define O_RDONLY 00
#define O_WRONLY 01
#define O_RDWR 02
and found it in : bits/fcntl-linux.h. According to this file it should not be included, but bits/fcntl.h.
And it requires something like that:
A minimal contains just:
struct flock {...}
#ifdef __USE_LARGEFILE64
struct flock64 {...}
#endif
#include
But this doesn't finally include the fcntl-linux.h as expected. Am I doing something wrong?
Regards
Arno
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] O_RDONLY ... missed bits/fcntl.h not as expected
You are right, the bits/fcntl-32.h at the very end has a
#include
But, all lines in are greyed (not active), except these I noted as bold (below). So it not become active.
I would assume __arm__ should be set by someone.
It seems it is not a problem for the compiler, but for the Eclipse viewer to show the code.
That is the problem here. I try to set ARCH=arm at various places in eclipse. but id doesn't have an effect.
Mhh.
Gesendet: Montag, 12. März 2018 um 11:39 Uhr
Von: "Burton, Ross" <ross.bur...@intel.com>
An: "Arno Steffens" <s...@gmx.li>
Cc: Yocto-mailing-list <yocto@yoctoproject.org>
Betreff: Re: Re: [yocto] O_RDONLY ... missed bits/fcntl.h not as expected
Have you looked at the content of bits/fcntl-32.h?
On 12 March 2018 at 10:32, Arno Steffens <s...@gmx.li> wrote:
Sure, sorry if this wasn't clear.
For me the chain is
includes (see below) and this doesn't include .
This is my SDK sysroot for cortexa9-hf.
Arno
/*
* Copyright (C) 2005-2011 by Wind River Systems, Inc.
*
* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
* of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
* in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
* to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
* copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
* furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
*
* The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
* all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
*
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
* IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
* AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
* LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
* OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
* THE SOFTWARE.
*
*/
#if defined (__arm__)
#define __MHWORDSIZE 32
#elif defined (__aarch64__) && defined ( __LP64__)
#define __MHWORDSIZE 64
#elif defined (__aarch64__)
#define __MHWORDSIZE 32
#else
#include
#if defined (__WORDSIZE)
#define __MHWORDSIZE __WORDSIZE
#else
#error "__WORDSIZE is not defined"
#endif
#endif
#if __MHWORDSIZE == 32
#ifdef _MIPS_SIM
#if _MIPS_SIM == _ABIO32
#include
#elif _MIPS_SIM == _ABIN32
#include
#else
#error "Unknown _MIPS_SIM"
#endif
#else /* _MIPS_SIM is not defined */
#include
#endif
#elif __MHWORDSIZE == 64
#include
#else
#error "Unknown __WORDSIZE detected"
#endif /* matches #if __WORDSIZE == 32 */
Gesendet: Montag, 12. März 2018 um 11:00 Uhr
Von: "Burton, Ross" <ross.bur...@intel.com>
An: "Arno Steffens" <s...@gmx.li>
Cc: Yocto-mailing-list <yocto@yoctoproject.org>
Betreff: Re: [yocto] O_RDONLY ... missed bits/fcntl.h not as expected
Can you explain what the actual problem is?
For me the include you'd use in programs includes which includes which defines O_RDONLY.
Ross
On 12 March 2018 at 07:32, Arno Steffens <s...@gmx.li> wrote:
I looked for
#define O_RDONLY 00
#define O_WRONLY 01
#define O_RDWR 02
and found it in : bits/fcntl-linux.h. According to this file it should not be included, but bits/fcntl.h.
And it requires something like that:
A minimal contains just:
struct flock {...}
#ifdef __USE_LARGEFILE64
struct flock64 {...}
#endif
#include
But this doesn't finally include the fcntl-linux.h as expected. Am I doing something wrong?
Regards
Arno
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] passwd fails for other users than root
> Gesendet: Montag, 12. März 2018 um 09:21 Uhr
> Von: "Maxin B. John" <maxin.j...@intel.com>
> An: "Arno Steffens" <s...@gmx.li>
> Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org
> Betreff: Re: [yocto] passwd fails for other users than root
>
> Hi Arno,
>
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 07:19:06AM +0100, Arno Steffens wrote:
> > I have 2 extra users (added with useradd_example.bb). Login works for all 3
> > parties.
> >
> > While login works, passwd (to change it) doesn't work for the extra users.
> > They will asked for the old one - which fails.
> > Root is not to be asked for old password. That's way root can change
> > password for all.
> >
> > The strange issue is, that after root changes password for users, they can
> > do it by themselves.
> > Seems that login and passwd use different algos!?!?
> >
> > Same password, but different hashes:
> > before (created by yocto)
> > user:$6$bk.Az/8KVV$v3TyAlroQeBZA3faJ.DxCVsCUBZaSAvB4FkuNkLDdsIchrmz6OnUGRnQI5BOgOjQ3mvj9QL3US6Amf2VWr0.j/:17598:0:9:7:::
> > behind (changed by root):
> > user:$1$d3Uo1g82$Il2kYQj8qadzQvkwUU4Ia.:17598:0:9:7:::
> >
> > Edit: After a few further test I found that this has an effect:
> > I used EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES += "read-only-rootfs" to create a
> > read-only-rootf (by default).
> > But of course I did make the partition writeable before attempting to
> > change the password.
> > But for some strange reasons this is not same. What might be the reason?
>
> Can you please share the version details and the useradd_example.bb that was
> mentioned here ?
> or even better, file a bug in Yocto's bugzilla
> (https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org) ?
>
> Best Regards,
> Maxin
>
I have been using the Yocto 2.3.3 version.
It is mainly unchanged useradd_example. The according line is
# USERADD_PARAM specifies command line options to pass to the
# useradd command. Multiple users can be created by separating
# the commands with a semicolon. Here we'll create two users,
# user1 and user2:
USERADD_PARAM_${PN} = "-u 1200 -d /home/user -r -s /bin/sh -P '' user; -u 1201
-d /home/guest -r -s /bin/sh -P '' guest"
and in the image-recipe I added:
EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES += "read-only-rootfs"
CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL += "useradd-example"
inherit extrausers
EXTRA_USERS_PARAMS = "usermod -P root root; usermod -P user user; usermod -P
guest guest"
...
But I also tried to leave the usermod command and add the password here:
USERADD_PARAM_${PN} = "-u 1200 -d /home/user -r -s /bin/sh -P 'user' user; -u
1201 -d /home/guest -r -s /bin/sh -P 'guest' guest"
...
The "read-only-rootfs" seems to make the difference, but I don't understand
why.
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] passwd fails for other users than root
I have 2 extra users (added with useradd_example.bb). Login works for all 3 parties. While login works, passwd (to change it) doesn't work for the extra users. They will asked for the old one - which fails. Root is not to be asked for old password. That's way root can change password for all. The strange issue is, that after root changes password for users, they can do it by themselves. Seems that login and passwd use different algos!?!? Same password, but different hashes: before (created by yocto) user:$6$bk.Az/8KVV$v3TyAlroQeBZA3faJ.DxCVsCUBZaSAvB4FkuNkLDdsIchrmz6OnUGRnQI5BOgOjQ3mvj9QL3US6Amf2VWr0.j/:17598:0:9:7::: behind (changed by root): user:$1$d3Uo1g82$Il2kYQj8qadzQvkwUU4Ia.:17598:0:9:7::: Edit: After a few further test I found that this has an effect: I used EXTRA_IMAGE_FEATURES += "read-only-rootfs" to create a read-only-rootf (by default). But of course I did make the partition writeable before attempting to change the password. But for some strange reasons this is not same. What might be the reason? -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] Update a recipe to use newer sources
Can you please help me? For one or 2 packages I need newer sources than available via yocto. Is there a guide what and how I have to modify (or better copy, modify and add???) a recipe where the only change is a newer source code release? I am aware that this can create trouble, but sometimes I need a bugfix that it is only in recent versions available. Thank you Arno -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] cortexa9t2hf instead of cortexa9hf
Hello Zoran, thanks. As far as I understand is thumb2 another mode of coding, that might create more compact code. But I want to keep all compatible to my previous tool-chain and settings. The only file where I can found this "cortexa9t2hf" is ./meta/conf/machine/include/tune-cortexa9.inc but I can't see how I can control Yocto to generate "cortexa9hf-neon" as before. Or have I been wrong the time before? bitbake gives me in 2.5: TUNE_FEATURES= "arm armv7a vfp thumb neon callconvention-hard cortexa9" TARGET_FPU = "hard" and in 2.7: TUNE_FEATURES= "arm vfp cortexa9 neon thumb callconvention-hard" TARGET_FPU = "hard" so armv7a seem to be missing. In terms of thumb both is same. But is that the reason? Where to set it? Arno > > Hello Arno, > > Your question, per say, has little to do with YOCTO forum. But I'll > try (as my best) to answer your question. > > Cortexa9hf should be armv7 A9 Hard Floating (it contains HW FP unit). > > Cortexa9t2hf is by analogy armv7 A9 T2 Hard Floating. Now, the > question is what is T2? T2 is addition to the previous architecture > Cortexa9hf, and addition is Thumb-2 mode. > > Hope this helps, > > Zoran > ___ > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:03 PM Arno Steffens wrote: > > > > I switched from Yocto 2.5 to 2.7 and recognised a new architetcure name. > > Instead of cortexa9hf it is now build for cortexa9t2hf? Did I do something > > wrong or what exactly does this t2 mean? > > Target system is a Zynq7020 system. > > -- > > ___ > > yocto mailing list > > yocto@yoctoproject.org > > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto > -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] cortexa9t2hf instead of cortexa9hf
I switched from Yocto 2.5 to 2.7 and recognised a new architetcure name. Instead of cortexa9hf it is now build for cortexa9t2hf? Did I do something wrong or what exactly does this t2 mean? Target system is a Zynq7020 system. -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] cortexa9t2hf instead of cortexa9hf
Thanks for explaining this. I take some time to read about thumb/thumb2. The feedback is mixed. It seems to generate more compact code, but some say it speeds up, others it slows down because of reduced function set - and it can cause strange effects. And mixing this causes time to switch processor mode. So, as I am not an expert in this and can't decide what ist best on per function base and speed is of highest priority, I think I better should use not thumb(2). So, do I get it right that with this cortexa9t2hf I just have the option to compile it for thumb2? But without using a dedicated compiler option it generates same "standard" arm code and the difference is just to adapt all the Makefiles for this suffix. According to Martin I can get the previous setting by just set ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET to "arm" instead of "armv7a". Mh - I just afraid that I lose other kinds of optimisation. (I am just a user not an expert in arm architecture). On the other hand for those like me it is better go the standard way. Once I am sure compiler results will not become worse (see above) I go for the pain and renaming my toolchain/makefiles/stuff. Thanks for you taking the time. Arno > Hello Arno, > > Let me try to explain my point of view. Since here (my best guess) we > have some asynchronous bitbake code which went South upon introducing > T2 HW extension. > > Point [1]: as far as I understand arm, cortexa9t2hf is is just a > superset of previous cortexa9hf (HW wise). NEON HW extension (NEON > media coprocessor) exists in both of them. In other words: > cortexa9t2hf = cortexa9hf HW + T2 HW extension. > > Point [2]: > > bitbake gives me in 2.5: > > TUNE_FEATURES= "arm armv7a vfp thumb neon callconvention-hard > > cortexa9" > > TARGET_FPU = "hard" > > > > and in 2.7: > > TUNE_FEATURES= "arm vfp cortexa9 neon thumb callconvention-hard" > > TARGET_FPU = "hard" > > These two lines are the same: you are able to use 32b arm mode, 16bit > thumb mode, using armv7 HW with neon HW extension, and using HW FP > extension as well. The Cortex in both cases is A9. > > I expect that somebody somewhere in bitbake version 1.42 - 100% sure > (since 2.5/Sumo uses bitbake 1.38) dropped "armv7a" as TUNE FEATURE, > and I have no idea if this is done intentionally or not. > > Because of that I copied Alex and Ross to CC: into email, so they > should unveil this mystery (I would prefer "armv7" to stay in bitbake > 1.42, since A8 and A9 belongs to armv7, A15 belongs to armv8 (IIRC). > > Bottom line: nothing to be done by you, Arno, seems that bitbake 1.42 > should return "armv7" as TUNE FEATURE. > > Best Regards, > Zoran > ___ > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 3:00 PM Arno Steffens wrote: > > > > Hello Zoran, > > thanks. As far as I understand is thumb2 another mode of coding, that might > > create more compact code. > > But I want to keep all compatible to my previous tool-chain and settings. > > The only file where I can found this "cortexa9t2hf" is > > ./meta/conf/machine/include/tune-cortexa9.inc > > but I can't see how I can control Yocto to generate "cortexa9hf-neon" as > > before. > > Or have I been wrong the time before? > > > > bitbake gives me in 2.5: > > > > TUNE_FEATURES= "arm armv7a vfp thumb neon callconvention-hard > > cortexa9" > > TARGET_FPU = "hard" > > > > and in 2.7: > > TUNE_FEATURES= "arm vfp cortexa9 neon thumb callconvention-hard" > > TARGET_FPU = "hard" > > > > so armv7a seem to be missing. In terms of thumb both is same. But is that > > the reason? Where to set it? > > Arno > > > > > > > > Hello Arno, > > > > > > Your question, per say, has little to do with YOCTO forum. But I'll > > > try (as my best) to answer your question. > > > > > > Cortexa9hf should be armv7 A9 Hard Floating (it contains HW FP unit). > > > > > > Cortexa9t2hf is by analogy armv7 A9 T2 Hard Floating. Now, the > > > question is what is T2? T2 is addition to the previous architecture > > > Cortexa9hf, and addition is Thumb-2 mode. > > > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > > > Zoran > > > ___ > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:03 PM Arno Steffens wrote: > > > > > > > > I switched from Yocto 2.5 to 2.7 and recognised a new architetcure name. > > > > Instead of cortexa9hf it is now build for cortexa9t2hf? Did I do > > > > something wrong or what exactly does this t2 mean? > > > > Target system is a Zynq7020 system. > > > > -- > > > > ___ > > > > yocto mailing list > > > > yocto@yoctoproject.org > > > > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto > > > > -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Eclipse (plugin, settings)
I always afraid of that, so don't wanna shot you. But instead of a plugin, is there anywhere like a howto/manual what to do best? Nowadays IDEs are so full off settings/adjustments that is hard to get an overview. I found an "C/C++ GCC Cross Compiler Support" that might be useful. Arno > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. Mai 2019 um 15:36 Uhr > Von: "Zoran Stojsavljevic" > An: "Arno Steffens" > Cc: "Yocto Project" > Betreff: Re: [yocto] Eclipse (plugin, settings) > > https://marc.info/?l=openembedded-core=155482339222316=2 > > (do not shoot the messenger, thank you) > > Zoran > ___ > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 1:11 PM Arno Steffens wrote: > > > > I want to use Eclipse as IDE for coding/debugging. > > What do I have to set to get the proper compiler prefixes and pathes, libs > > and includes ? > > Or any way to combine the environment setup with start of eclipse? > > > > I have seen there was a Eclipse plugin, but not for newer versions as > > 2019.03. > > > > Here (https://www.yoctoproject.org/software-item/eclipse-ide-plug-in/) is > > referenced to the eSDK manual, but no word about eclipse in it. Til now I > > just use SDK. > > > > Thanks > > Arno > > -- > > ___ > > yocto mailing list > > yocto@yoctoproject.org > > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto > -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] Eclipse (plugin, settings)
I want to use Eclipse as IDE for coding/debugging. What do I have to set to get the proper compiler prefixes and pathes, libs and includes ? Or any way to combine the environment setup with start of eclipse? I have seen there was a Eclipse plugin, but not for newer versions as 2019.03. Here (https://www.yoctoproject.org/software-item/eclipse-ide-plug-in/) is referenced to the eSDK manual, but no word about eclipse in it. Til now I just use SDK. Thanks Arno -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] [zeus] icu-native-64.2-r0 do_configure: configure failed
Thanks Ross, that was a great help! Not sure I would found it... Indeed python3 was installed but not all required elements: sudo apt-get install python3-distutils was my friend. Best regards Arno -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] [zeus] icu-native-64.2-r0 do_configure: configure failed
I use a poky core-image-minimal with some packages added - as for instance strace and valgrind (for armv7a). Strange - yocto in older versions generates images with valgrind/strace .. without any complaints. So both PC and image-recipe are same, but in Yocto 2.5 and 2.7 it works, in 3.0 not ?!? Sorry I am confused, do you mean python is missing in requested image or at host PC with Ubuntu 1804? If it is missing in image, shouldn't it be included by dependencies automatically? At UbuntuPC python 2.7 is installed: python Python 2.7.15+ (default, Oct 7 2019, 17:39:04) [GCC 7.4.0] on linux2 Regrads Arno -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
