-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RISCV toolchain from source #13
Comments
If this was done quickly, the history could be rewritten to strip out the large binaries. However, this is generally a nasty thing to do to git and to all developers who cloned the repo already. I mean "quickly" here as in to minimize the inconvenience of the rewritten history. |
@WildCryptoFox Well, this would be great, but as you noted, already many people forked it. |
Not entirely sure we need to build this as part of the project, most distributions carry riscv64 cross compilers now, could simply document using them? |
@jamespthomas Ideally a generic toolchain would suffice but this involves custom extensions (I.e. the crypto coprocessor). It is plausible the toolchain is specialized for this target. Can someone confirm? |
@WildCryptoFox I did not know that, some documentation on this would be good (I saw your existing issue) |
@jamespthomas If I have working compiler, built from source I could in theory try compiling some sources from this repo and compare for any differences. |
So, I have good news. At least GCC and binutils are the exactly same binary as is available here. They simply copied CentOS variant (https://static.dev.sifive.com/dev-tools/riscv64-unknown-elf-gcc-8.3.0-2019.08.0-x86_64-linux-centos6.tar.gz) and that's it. Therefore it is not necessary to create any custom scripts. Edit: I made a draft pull request #23 that deletes files known to be present in SiFive's package. |
Hi folks,
Do you think it might be useful to spend some time to recover toolchain from source? I mean to be able to build exactly the same versions of tools like GCC, libc, etc. and adjust some configuration bits if needed. I did this kind of stuff for few boards lately (https://github.com/v3l0c1r4pt0r/cc-factory) and I think I might be able to do the same thing for BL602. For the mentioned boards this allowed me to link to existing binaries, but I didn't have any working toolchain in these cases. Here we have some. So let me know, what do you think? Is it worth to do it now? I can spend an evening or two on that.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: