qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] Add optionrom compatible with fw_cfg DMA ver


From: Stefan Hajnoczi
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] Add optionrom compatible with fw_cfg DMA version
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:43:29 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:26:12PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Di, 2016-01-26 at 12:20 +0100, Marc Marí wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:11:54 +0000
> > Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:17:48PM +0100, Marc Marí wrote:
> > > > +linuxboot_dma.img: linuxboot_dma.o
> > > > +       $(call quiet-command,$(LD) $(LDFLAGS_NOPIE) -m elf_i386
> > > > -Ttext 0 -e _start -s -o $@ $<,"  Building $(TARGET_DIR)$@") +
> > > >  %.img: %.o
> > > >         $(call quiet-command,$(LD) $(LDFLAGS_NOPIE) -Ttext 0 -e
> > > > _start -s -o $@ $<,"  Building $(TARGET_DIR)$@")  
> > > 
> > > Why is -m elf_i386 necessary for linuxboot_dma.img but not for the
> > > other *.img files?
> > 
> > I cannot give a precise explanation. But if I don't force an output
> > type, I get this error:
> > 
> > Building optionrom/linuxboot_dma.img
> > ld: i386 architecture of input file `linuxboot_dma.o' is incompatible
> > with i386:x86-64 output
> 
> Any chance the linker needs -m32 too?

I wonder why this isn't a problem for the existing firmware code.  Are
we really building x86_64 ELF files for our firmware?

Stefan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]