[meta-virtualization] [PATCH 1/4] vgabios : extract biossums tool and build it separately, native

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Christopher Clark <
christopher.w.clark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Bruce Ashfield
> <bruce.ashfield at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 1:08 AM, <christopher.w.clark at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> From: Christopher Clark <christopher.clark6 at baesystems.com>
> >>
> >> The biossums tool is used to generate the vgabios build product.
> >>
> >> This patch:
> >> * adds a separate recipe "biossums" for the tool
> >> * makes the vgabios recipe depend upon biossums-native
> >> * makes the vgabios recipe use the native binary rather than a locally
> >> built one
> ...
>
> >> +PR = "r0"
> >
> > Minor issue, no need for a PR value in a new recipe. The PR server will
> > handle it.
>
> Oh yes - thanks, good catch.
>
> >> +
> >> +do_compile() {
> >> +    oe_runmake clean
> >
> >
> > What actually happens if the clean isn't run before each compile ?
>
> It's a good question. Here's where I see different behaviour with and
> without that clean:
>
> bitbake -c cleansstate vgabios biossums-native
> bitbake vgabios
>
> With the clean present, building vgabios will trigger biossums-native
> to be built to satisfy the dependency, and vgabios's compile will
> succeed. Without the clean present, biossums-native does get its build
> triggered, but the vgabios build fails with:
>
> "make: execvp: biossums: Accessing a corrupted shared library"
>


Interesting. So it sounds like whatever is installed from biossums-native
in a
previous build is checked for .. something ... and declared invalid on a
subsequent run.

.. but since the clean is before the make of biosums-native, I'm at a loss
to
understand why on a later build of vgabios it makes a difference. Is it some
sort of host vs target issue ?

When that error happens, and you look in the native sysroot, what does
the .so look like ? What does file say about it ?

Bruce


>
> I think if bitbake has calculated that running the compile step is
> required, then it needs to actually do the compile and not have "make"
> make its own local decision to skip it, and the clean forces that to
> happen.
>
> Christopher
>



-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
at its end"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-virtualization/attachments/20170823/111b9a83/attachment.html>