On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 15:17 +0300, Kai Ruottu wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: > > Danny Backx wrote: > >> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:07 +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > > > >> Kai Ruottu wrote : > >>> Comparing the output from some earlier working GCC with the gcc-4.4.0 > >>> output would reveal if something was wrong in preparing inputs for > >>> the soft-float routines... Or maybe something was changed in the > >>> soft-float routines... What if you try a 'libgcc.a' taken from some > >>> earlier working GCC ? > >> Did that, see below. I think this means that the stuff in libgcc.a cause > >> the issue. > > > > Could this be related to old-vs-new EABI? Is the stack aligned to the > > same > > multiple on entry to main in both old and new executables? The assembler > > code > > looked basically the same, except the stack frame size has changed and a lot > > of things that were aligned to an (odd/even) multiple of 8 may now be > > aligned > > to an (even/odd) multiple instead. > > Also the message thread started by : > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2009-03/msg00107.html > > could be checked... Although taking part in it, I don't remember what > was solved or not :( In any case Vincent R. could know something more > now...
I think Vincent was wrestling with the issues of the same commit I wrote about earlier : Danny wrote : > I've further looked at the content of libgcc2.c, which reveals macros > renamed from L_* to L_arm_* (commit r132837 in gcc svn). This renamed a lot of those macros. I still don't know whether that commit is related to my problem though. Danny -- Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info