From: kaz K. <kk...@rr...> - 2000-10-28 05:06:18
|
Hi all, I'd like to report the status of new toolchain. They are stable and some weird bugs (especially in compiler) are eliminated. Now the sources of new toolchain are available, but I should explain other things first before listing up the resources. 1) There are some differences with current toolchain. New gcc and binutils are brushed up by peoples mainly in Red Hat and they changed some features of our experimental ports which are basically equal to existing ports in SourceForge. The major differences are the followings: * New gcc doesn't generate register prefix $. * New as doesn't permit register prefix. * New as doesn't need -pic option. * New ld uses in place relocation for R_SH_RELATIVE relocation in shared object. (The old ld uses addend field for it.) The last one results the binary incompatibility problem. So we prepare compatibility patches for new ld and dynamic linker in GNU libc. (These relocations appear only in shared library, fortunately :-)) The patch for new ld doesn't change the behavior of new ld but clears addend field of the relocation in problem. Then the dynamic linker can detect whether a shared library uses relocations of old type or not. Now I'm using the mixture of the old and new binaries and libraries and there is no problem. The patch for dynamic linker is included in mainline libc source already. This incompatibility makes the install of new toolchain in native system hard. I recommend that * make new binutils and gcc and install them not as system binary. (You can use --prefix option at configuration.) * make libc with new toolchain. If you get success, then install it. * make new toolchain to system binaries. for brave testers who use SH native system. But if you want to know more details, never try it :-) To be honest, I made mistakes in such process and the result was very disastrous. I think that we should prepare the binary package in SourceForge. The second deference will affects hand-crafted codes. Of course, we can give a tiny local patch which turns this difference simply (like as Niibe-san's patch) or permits $ but warning for it. 2) A few small patches are still waiting. Niibe-san and I posted a few tiny patches to new toolchain. But they are not included in mainline sources yet. 3) A native GDB support. New toolchain doesn't have any native GDB support. I have a very experimental patch for it. 4) Resources. GCC: http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html GNU binutils: http://sources.redhat.com/binutils/ GNU libc: http://sources.redhat.com/glibc/ GDB: http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/ Please remember these CVS resources (especially GCC) are not stable version. About local patches and a temporary native GDB support, see http://dodo.nurs.or.jp/~kkojima/gnu-on-sh/temporary-README-new-toolchain kaz |
From: Denis D. <dp...@pr...> - 2000-12-11 04:25:59
|
I am having some problems building the new toolchain. Specifically I am building: binutils-001005.tar.gz with patch binutils-001005.diff.gz egcs-core-20001002.tar.gz with patch gcc-200010002.diff.gz glibc-2.1.3.tar.bz2 1) What are the configuration options for gcc to prevent it trying to build zlib. Currently I configure gcc as per Stuart Menefy's notes and it attempts to build zlib and bombs. I can work around this by changing into the gcc subdirectory and doing a make install here but there must be a better way. 2) The new cpplib in gcc looks to have some bugs. This causes it to produce strange output into the kernel/arch/sh/ld.script. I have worked around this with an awk script. 3) gcc now exits with an error when compiling an empty file. Parts of glibc do this. Again the work around is straight forward. 4) Finally I am having problems getting the new ld.so.1 and glibc.so.6 working on my target. I just get segmentation faults when I install ld.so.1. I noticed that the ABI has changed. Does this mean that I also need different kernel support. It could also be that I have missed a patch. I am currently using a patched version of glibc-2.1.3. Would going to glibc2.2 help? Thanks in advance for the help Regards, Denis Dowling |
From: NIIBE Y. <gn...@m1...> - 2000-12-11 05:22:08
|
Denis Dowling wrote: > 1) What are the configuration options for gcc to prevent it trying to > build zlib. Currently > I configure gcc as per Stuart Menefy's notes and it attempts to build > zlib and bombs. I > can work around this by changing into the gcc subdirectory and doing > a make install here > but there must be a better way. make cross-gcc Don't let it make run-time library. > 2) The new cpplib in gcc looks to have some bugs. This causes it to > produce strange output > into the kernel/arch/sh/ld.script. I have worked around this with an > awk script. Please use -traditional -- |
From: kaz K. <kk...@rr...> - 2000-12-11 05:30:32
|
Hi, Denis Dowling <dp...@pr...> wrote: > I am having some problems building the new toolchain. [snip] > 4) Finally I am having problems getting the new ld.so.1 and glibc.so.6 > working on my target. I just get segmentation faults when I install > ld.so.1. I noticed that the ABI has changed. Does this mean that I also > need different kernel support. It could also be that I have missed a patch. > I am currently using a patched version of glibc-2.1.3. Would going to > glibc2.2 help? New toolchain needs the dynamic linker in glibc-2.2. kaz |
From: NIIBE Y. <gn...@ch...> - 2000-10-30 09:15:27
|
kaz Kojima wrote: > I'd like to report the status of new toolchain. They are stable and > some weird bugs (especially in compiler) are eliminated. Thanks a lot for the effort of everyone, especially Kaz and RedHat people. For your convinience (or nightmare ;-), I've put the sources at ftp.m17n.org. ftp.m17n.org:/pub/super-h/original/ binutils-001005.tar.gz egcs-core-20001002.tar.gz And my patches (including Kaz'): ftp.m17n.org:/pub/super-h/ binutils-001005.diff.gz (so that we can still use '$': Backward compatibility) gcc-200010002.diff.gz Please test these tools for kernel. I'm now testing GNU C library 2.1.96... -- |
From: Rene M. <re...@li...> - 2000-11-01 09:16:15
|
NIIBE Yutaka wrote: > > kaz Kojima wrote: > > I'd like to report the status of new toolchain. They are stable and > > some weird bugs (especially in compiler) are eliminated. > > Thanks a lot for the effort of everyone, especially Kaz and RedHat people. > > For your convinience (or nightmare ;-), I've put the sources at ftp.m17n.org. > > ftp.m17n.org:/pub/super-h/original/ > binutils-001005.tar.gz > egcs-core-20001002.tar.gz > > And my patches (including Kaz'): > > ftp.m17n.org:/pub/super-h/ > binutils-001005.diff.gz (so that we can still use '$': Backward compatibility) > gcc-200010002.diff.gz > > Please test these tools for kernel. I'm now testing GNU C library 2.1.96... I did find som debian packages on the site (in the debian directory) are these the same. And if so are they patched (didnt look so but asking anyhow)? I did compile the kernel with these tools and it vent fine up to a point. And I suspect that that isn't gcc related. /Rene |
From: NIIBE Y. <gn...@ch...> - 2000-11-22 00:31:24
|
Thanks all for testing the toolchain. Here's the update. Kaz has been doing extensive tests, and C and C++ bootstrap on his environments, reportedly. Takeshi added the support of non-multilib versions (i.e., sh3-unknown-linux-gnu, sh3eb-unknown-linux-gnu, sh4-unknown-linux-gnu, sh4eb-unknown-linux-gnu). Please note that C++ ABI has been changed (towards GCC 3.0). ftp.m17n.org:/pub/super-h/testing/gcc-core-20001120.tar.gz ftp.m17n.org:/pub/super-h/testing/gcc-g++-20001120.tar.gz ftp.m17n.org:/pub/super-h/testing/gcc-20001120.diff.gz -- |
From: Bryan R. <br...@ix...> - 2000-11-22 00:55:02
|
NIIBE Yutaka wrote: > Thanks all for testing the toolchain. Here's the update. Hello NIIBE-san, Does this toolchain build the LinuxSH kernel in CVS correctly? Trying to do so with the "old" toolchain (the one still in CVS) produces quite a big list of errors. One of problems is the use of the nofpudiv compiler flag (which is not supported by the old gcc) but there are lots of include problems also. Is this a kernel issue or a compiler issue? Because of the errors, I am using a CVS kernel snapshot from several weeks ago that builds OK with the old toolchain... Regards, Bryan -- Bryan Rittmeyer mailto:br...@ix... Ixia Communications 26601 W. Agoura Rd. Calabasas, CA 91302 |
From: NIIBE Y. <gn...@ch...> - 2000-11-22 02:06:08
|
Bryan Rittmeyer wrote: > Does this toolchain build the LinuxSH kernel in CVS correctly? Yes. But please note that GCC we're using is very new one, it will produce bunch of warnings for old code. > Trying to > do so with the "old" toolchain (the one still in CVS) produces quite a > big list of errors. One of problems is the use of the nofpudiv compiler > flag (which is not supported by the old gcc) but there are lots of > include problems also. Is this a kernel issue or a compiler issue? It's because old toolchain has error in the specs file, it should set __SH4__ but old one defines __SH3__ and __sh3__. -- |