lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:35:15 +0900
From:   Stafford Horne <>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <>
Cc:     Fengguang Wu <>,
        Openrisc <>,, Guenter Roeck <>,
        Tony Breeds <>
Subject: Re: Crosstool/kbuild-all toolchain updates

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:49:23AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:26:37PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > An uptodate crosstool and reasonable active maintainer would be very
> > welcome. I'll sure be a heavy user. In the past year when crosstool is
> > not updated to gcc-6, we've resorted to using debian packages for some
> > ARCHs and building our own cross compliers for the other ARCHs. The
> > latter are based on Segher's buildall tools (CCed). The private builds
> > may work for us in short term, however is obvious not a satisfactory
> > solution.
> Buildall supports GCC only, and this is not likely to change.

I think we are not requiring more at this moment.

My thought was to open up/modernize the crostool build system and store it
on  Currently Tony mentions [0] "They are built using a
modified version of the buildall scripts".  I am hoping we can get those
from him and..

  - Create a project kernel/git/{user}/crosstool.git
  - Store there
    * build script (wrapping buildall)
    * any patches needed i.e. or1k/gcc.patch
    * scripts for signing and uploading binaries to website
    * container config for setting up whole build in docker
       * i.e. something like masami's linux-cross [1]

The idea being that then when people want to update binaries they can
just send a patch.  The maintainer need just run the scripts.

Another question, does anyone use the 32-bit binaries anymore?



> The primary usecase for buildall is for my own GCC testing.  All patches
> are welcome, but I'm not likely to apply them if they make it harder to
> use the tools for what their goal is.  I'm certainly not going to apply
> patches to other trees from the scripts, etc.
> Buildall itself is still maintained.  It does not get very many updates
> but that is because it is close to perfect ;-)
> On the other hand I'll be happy to help wherever I can.  Just Cc: me on
> whatever comes up.
> Segher

Powered by blists - more mailing lists