Tom Rini <[email protected]> 於 2025年12月2日週二 上午2:38寫道： > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 02:37:42AM +0800, Sune Brian wrote: > > Tom Rini <[email protected]> 於 2025年12月2日週二 上午2:27寫道： > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 01:59:53AM +0800, Sune Brian wrote: > > > > Tom Rini <[email protected]> 於 2025年12月2日週二 上午1:09寫道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 01:07:00AM +0800, Sune Brian wrote: > > > > > > Tom Rini <[email protected]> 於 2025年12月2日週二 上午12:54寫道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 12:52:06AM +0800, Sune Brian wrote: > > > > > > > > Tom Rini <[email protected]> 於 2025年12月2日週二 上午12:44寫道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 08:46:14AM +0800, Sune Brian wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Tom Rini <[email protected]> 於 2025年11月29日週六 上午12:50寫道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 06:44:12PM +0200, Ilias > > > > > > > > > > > Apalodimas wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 at 17:31, Tom Rini > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 10:11:53AM +0800, Yuslaimi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alif Zakuan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27/11/2025 11:09 pm, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [CAUTION: This email is from outside your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > organization. Unless you trust > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sender, do not click on links or open > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attachments as it may be a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fraudulent email attempting to steal your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information and/or compromise > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your computer.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/27/25 3:12 AM, Yuslaimi, Alif Zakuan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I already have the referenced commit in my test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch, and I can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confirm that the same compilation error still > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appears on CycloneV when > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certain directories produce no SPL objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The existing fix ensures that built-in.o is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always present, but it does > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not prevent ar from generating empty built-in.a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > archives, which older > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ARM 32-bit linkers (such as CycloneV > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toolchains) reject as “file > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > truncated”. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which toolchain is this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am using Linaro arm-linux-gnueabihf GCC 7.5.0 to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compile our SoC32 devices > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - CycloneV and Arria10 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ilias, do you recall the solution to this problem > > > > > > > > > > > > > from when it came up > > > > > > > > > > > > > on IRC a few weeks ago? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nop unfortunately not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Was this caused by the Kbuild bump? I remember the > > > > > > > > > > > > logic around > > > > > > > > > > > > builtin changing significantly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and I kinda thought we narrowed it down to something > > > > > > > > > > > being missing > > > > > > > > > > > from the update, since the kernel does support this old > > > > > > > > > > > of a toolchain > > > > > > > > > > > (or at least the 10.x? someone else this on). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually I am not sure u-boot itself have minimum > > > > > > > > > > requirement on each tag > > > > > > > > > > or branch listed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We do not currently have a test for anything other than > > > > > > > > > "newer than > > > > > > > > > gcc-6" for ARM, but should have the same minimum requirements > > > > > > > > > as the > > > > > > > > > linux kernel, but are lacking enforcement checks (but I also > > > > > > > > > think the > > > > > > > > > kernel is?). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops, missing the kernel version. Add it back for better debug. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, what I meant was that it's a kbuild related issue as to > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > version of gcc can be used. We don't have a check, and should, > > > > > > > but also > > > > > > > the versions in question here should be expected to work. There's > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > some change we're missing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > So long story short this patch itself should not introduce from > > > > > > beginning. > > > > > > It is a GCC version depended issue. > > > > > > But how to pin-point down to which version is a bit hard. > > > > > > Distro link with GCC version and not all gcc version can easily > > > > > > checked. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any idea how to easily check this? > > > > > > > > > > We can use the check we have today in arch/arm/config.mk under > > > > > "checkgcc6" to check for something much newer. But! It's a problem of > > > > > a > > > > > missing kbuild change I think, based on when this problem was first > > > > > reported. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > > > For GCC version sub-version do not matters? > > > > For example 6.x.x 7.x.x 8.x.x > > > > Or 9.3 9.4 etc also matters? > > > > So to determine the supported version it just need to pin-point to > > > > the major GCC version? > > > > Then the possible version break only <=10 or <10? > > > > Based on the previous build success case. > > > > 9.2.0 fails 11.4.0 passed. > > > > > > Looking through logs now, I see the kernel says 8.1 or newer: > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/changes.html which is why > > > I have been saying there's an underlying kbuild problem (missing > > > change(s)) that needs to be resolved. I don't know if 10.x works or > > > fails, but that's still beside the point to me as 9.2.0 should work. > > > > > > -- > > > Tom > > > > Do this apply to arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc ? > > Or the 8.1 is apply to base gcc not cross-compile? > > Just want to confirm. > > Yes, it's gcc 8.1 regardless of if it's a cross compiler or not. > > -- > Tom
Long story short: arm-none-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (GNU Toolchain for the A-profile Architecture 10.2-2020.11 (arm-10.16)) 10.2.1 20201103 Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. SYM spl/u-boot-spl.sym CAT spl/u-boot-spl-dtb.bin COPY spl/u-boot-spl.bin MKIMAGE spl/u-boot-spl.sfp GENSPLX4 spl/u-boot-splx4.sfp SOCBOOT u-boot-with-spl.sfp OFCHK .config arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (Ubuntu 10-20200411-0ubuntu1) 10.0.1 20200411 (experimental) [master revision bb87d5cc77d:75961caccb7:f883c46b4877f637e0fa5025b4d6b5c9040ec566] Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. LD spl/u-boot-spl OBJCOPY spl/u-boot-spl-nodtb.bin SYM spl/u-boot-spl.sym CAT spl/u-boot-spl-dtb.bin COPY spl/u-boot-spl.bin MKIMAGE spl/u-boot-spl.sfp GENSPLX4 spl/u-boot-splx4.sfp SOCBOOT u-boot-with-spl.sfp OFCHK .config arm-none-linux-gnueabihf-ld: arch/arm/cpu/built-in.a: file not recognized: file truncated scripts/Makefile.xpl:542: recipe for target 'spl/u-boot-spl' failed make[1]: *** [spl/u-boot-spl] Error 1 Makefile:2358: recipe for target 'spl/u-boot-spl' failed make: *** [spl/u-boot-spl] Error 2 arm-none-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (GNU Toolchain for the A-profile Architecture 9.2-2019.12 (arm-9.10)) 9.2.1 20191025 Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. So 10.0.1 should be good enough. Brian
