[K42-discussion] What is the correct version of gcc, glibc, binutils, linux and linuxthreads required for a successful K42 build ?

Nathan Sweet nsweet at cs.unm.edu
Wed Dec 21 06:29:56 EST 2005 

Elvis,

If I remember correctly, Fedora Core 4 uses gcc 4, which doesn't work 
(or, at least, it didn't when I tried it 4 months ago).  Installing the 
gcc compat packages might work.  Those are version 3.2, I believe.  Take 
it with a grain of salt, however, as I never tried it and I found it a 
lot easier to set up Ubuntu 5.04 (which uses gcc 3.5) on a separate 
partition to do any K42 related work.

Eventually, I created scripts to build and run K42 on systemsim to 
facilitate the process for other students here.  That way the students 
don't have to worry about which environment variables need to be defined 
for building and/or running.  I'll post a link to them later once I make 
sure they're updated.  You're free to peruse them and adapt them to your 
needs. 

Orran Y Krieger wrote:

>
> Hopefully Andrew, someone from UNM or Toronto, or Amos or Michal or 
> Jimi can answere this.  I am blisfully ignorant and use the tools 
> provided for me by others on the team :-)
>
>
> *"Elvis John Dowson" <elvis_dowson at hotmail.com>*
>
> 12/20/2005 01:23 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	Orran Y Krieger/Watson/IBM at IBMUS
> cc
> 	"'Andrew Baumann'" <andrewb at cse.unsw.edu.au>, "'Jimi Xenidis'" 
> <jimix at watson.ibm.com>, <k42-discussion at ozlabs.org>
> Subject
> 	RE: [K42-discussion]  What is the correct version of gcc, glibc, 
> binutils, linux and linuxthreads required for a successful K42 build ?
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>        So, if I download and install the following packages, then K42 
> will compile correctly under Fedora Core 4 ?
>  
> _http://www.cs.unm.edu/~k42/pub/k42-devkit/k42-toolchain_0.1.0.orig.tar.gz_ 
> <http://www.cs.unm.edu/%7Ek42/pub/k42-devkit/k42-toolchain_0.1.0.orig.tar.gz> 
>
> _http://www.cs.unm.edu/~k42/pub/k42-devkit/k42-packages_0.5.4.orig.tar.gz_ 
> <http://www.cs.unm.edu/%7Ek42/pub/k42-devkit/k42-packages_0.5.4.origtar.gz> 
>
> _http://www.cs.unm.edu/~k42/pub/k42-devkit/k42-devkit_0.2.0.orig.tar.gz_ 
> <http://www.cs.unm.edu/%7Ek42/pub/k42-devkit/k42-devkit_0.2.0.orig.tar.gz> 
>
>  
> I have already downloaded the latest K42 sources from the CVS repository.
>  
> Thank you and do let me know !
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Elvis Dowson
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Orran Y Krieger [mailto:okrieg at us.ibm.com] *
> Sent:* Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:40 PM*
> To:* Elvis John Dowson*
> Cc:* 'Andrew Baumann'; 'Jimi Xenidis'; k42-discussion at ozlabs.org; 
> k42-discussion-bounces at ozlabs.org; 'Andrew Baumann'; 'Jimi Xenidis'; 
> k42-discussion at ozlabs.org; k42-discussion-bounces at ozlabs.org*
> Subject:* RE: [K42-discussion] What is the correct version of gcc, 
> glibc, binutils, linux and linuxthreads required for a successful K42 
> build ?
>  
>
> Elvis,
>
> There is perhaps some confusion here.  K42 is intimate with a 
> particular toolchain version (e.g., we know how virtual function 
> tables are laid out for our stub compiler), and that toolchain has to 
> be built a specific way to be able to build K42.   Its a pretty major 
> project to build the toolchain, its got nothing whatsoever to do with 
> building the K42 kernel, and most people that want to hack on K42 want 
> to know nothing about building the toolchain.  Once you have the 
> toolchain, building K42 is relatively straightforward.   We have tried 
> to do a reasonable job of documenting how to build K42 itself.   If 
> you want to work/play on the OS, really the best bet today is to just 
> use the binary version of the toolchain that is distributed at UNM and 
> Toronto.   If you want to build your own version... its digging into a 
> big pit.  
>
> Unfortunately, the toolchain problem is agrevated by the fact that we 
> are locked into an older version of the toolchain.  With more recent 
> vesions the kind of scripts that the Cell guys use would work for us 
> as well.  Someone at the university of new mexico agreed a while back 
> to work on upgrading us to a new version of the toolchain, but have 
> not heard anything about that recently?  Any progress on this guys?
>
>         -- Orran
>
>
> *"Elvis John Dowson" <elvis_dowson at hotmail.com>*
> Sent by: k42-discussion-bounces at ozlabs.org
>
> 12/18/2005 07:07 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	"'Andrew Baumann'" <andrewb at cse.unsw.edu.au>, "'Jimi Xenidis'" 
> <jimix at watson.ibm.com>
> cc
> 	k42-discussion at ozlabs.org
> Subject
> 	RE: [K42-discussion]  What is the correct version of gcc, glibc,     
>    binutils, linux and linuxthreads required for a successful K42 build ?
>
>
>  
>
>
>   	 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>    I would like to learn how to build it from scratch and from the cvs
> sources.
>
> One thing I can say for certain, the present documentation and 
> distribution
> mode is completely unworkable.
>
> I'm using a Linux Fedora Core 4 distribution. All the build.sh scripts 
> that
> I tried using doesnt work. I even tried various compatible builds of gcc,
> glibc, etc, known to match with the linux kernel and still it doesnt build
> correctly.
>
> To top it all, I dont have the bitkeeper program or the bk command.
> Searching the net, I read about the bitkeeper controversy. They sent me a
> link to a bkbits client, build it didnt have a bk command utility after I
> built the sources.
>
> So I can even follow the instructions give below to patch the kernel even,
> as posted on the K42-Tornado Operating System website :
> http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~tornado/#overview
>
> Linux patches for the K42 target architecture:
> ----------------------------------------------
> patch25.bz2
> patch26.bz2
> patch26b.bz2 - Apply this patch on top of the patch26.bz2 patch using:
> bzip2 -dc patch26b.bz2 | bk receive -a linux-026
>
> All in all, quite unworkable and badly supported as a distribution. I've
> spend more than 4 days (18 hours a day for a total of 72 hours) straight,
> starting from scratch, to attempt to build the K42 sources, with no 
> results,
> so far).
>
> The Cell SystemSim distribution was much cleaner and I could resolve 
> all the
> build dependencies easily, with less effort. With K42, it doesnt seem 
> to be
> the case.
>
> I've downloaded the document sources and built the html files, that 
> was kind
> of amusing by the way, when compared to a windows development
> environment,... I mean I wasted so much time, just to figure out that 
> I had
> to build the html files from SGML sources !! That was crazy. I mean, you
> guys must be wasting so much time with the infrastructure, support 
> structure
> and the organization of this entire project. The results were quite 
> nice and
> fancy in the end, but I think one tends to get into nitty gritty 
> details and
> lose sight of the forest from the trees, if you know what I mean.
>
> I guess once you get it working, it would be good, but for me, the initial
> experience is not good, for the moment, for no reason other than having
> outdated documentation for the build process.
>
> I come from a DO-178B real-time embedded avionics software development
> background and have worked on a variety of platforms and tools, plus
> scientific engineering aerospace application development and OpenGL.
>
> All those environments, platforms and tools were fairly straightforward to
> work with and the time spend learning would directly map to results for a
> given task.
>
> Here, I feel it's time wasted on unproductive tasks that do not lend 
> itself
> towards getting results for a given task (case in point, building the
> documentation set from the sgml files, outdated and scattered build
> instructions, problems with tools (bitkeeper), incomplete 
> distributions and
> supplied toolsets ( no netap host application for recieving simulator
> network interface broadcast packets, etc )
>
> I think its easy for someone internally at IBM to do all the development,
> but for an external developer, the state of the distribution is quite
> unworkable. Agreed that you have pre-built distributions that are 500MB
> large, but I should also be able to build from the sources too.
>
> Anyway, I'm just telling you all this to let you know how I feel, in the
> hope that sometime in the future you could address some of these 
> points, so
> that the experience is better for someone attempting to work on the K42
> project, externally, other than the internal IBM development team.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Elvis Dowson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Baumann [mailto:andrewb at cse.unsw.edu.au]
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 3:11 AM
> To: Elvis John Dowson
> Cc: k42-discussion at ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [K42-discussion] What is the correct version of gcc, glibc,
> binutils, linux and linuxthreads required for a successful K42 build ?
>
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:16 pm, Elvis John Dowson wrote:
> > Would it be possible for someone to tell me which version of gcc, glibc,
> > binutils, linux, linuxthreads and patches are required for a successful
> K42
> > build ?
>
> Building a toolchain and all the supporting software for use with K42 
> isn't
> exactly easy. If you can, I strongly suggest using one of Amos 
> Waterland's
> K42 toolchain/library packages (for i386) from here:
> http://www.cs.unm.edu/~k42/pub/k42-devkit
>
> As for versions, in that package are a gcc-3.3.3 prerelease,
> binutils-2.14.90,
> and glibc 2.3.2. The version of linux being used is specific to K42, 
> so you
> definitely need to get that from the k42-packages tree.
>
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> K42-discussion mailing list
> K42-discussion at ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/k42-discussion
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>K42-discussion mailing list
>K42-discussion at ozlabs.org
>https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/k42-discussion
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/k42-discussion/attachments/20051220/2fb4dd81/attachment.htm

More information about the K42-discussion mailing list