On Tue, 07 Sep 1999, Philip Blundell wrote:
> BTW, if you use the 2.95 or 2.95.1 release, you should try to add this patch
> from CVS:
>
> Thu Sep 2 00:06:43 1999 Jeffrey A Law ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> * fold-const.c (fold_range_test): Do not try to fold the range
> test if the rhs or lhs has side effects.
>
> It fixes a bug that caused miscompilation of one small part of the kernel.
> It's unlikely to affect anything other that device drivers, but you never know.
>
> As to binutils, the default is for gcc 2.95.x to expect binutils 2.9.1.0.x
> (get whatever the latest is). The 2.9.5.0.x branch of binutils is somewhat
> less buggy and you might like to try that instead though it has a few gotchas
> of its own (see the archives of this mailing list for details).
>
Ok! I'm in the process of building gcc 2.95.1. I've applied Philip's
gcc-2.95-diff-990730 patch and perform the #if 0 to # if 1 switch in
gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h as recommended in
http://www.tazenda.demon.co.uk/phil/armlinux.
Now, what about that extra CVS patch? Where is this CVS thing and how do I
apply the patch ?
And what about these 2.9.5.0.x binutils gotchas?
Is this only the #if 0 to #if 1 switch or more?
I use binutils 2.9.5.0.11 whitout any patches as stated by Philip.
I've look in the mailing list up to June whitout finding any thing very
relevant. Except may be this, dating from Aug 07, from Philip:
>This is the one issue that makes me reluctant to tell everyone to throw away
>binutils 2.9.1 and use 2.9.5 instead. Basically, owing to a series of fairly
>uninteresting slip-ups, we have ended up in a situation where binutils
>2.9.5 is not 100% compatible with the older versions. Normal programs
>shouldn't care but gcc and glibc need to know the difference.
>
>I hope it will be fixed in glibc before 2.1.2 is actually released, though I
>can't make any promise.
>
>As a side note, I am about to change the mainline egcs sources so that a
>target name of `arm-*-linux-gnu' implies binutils 2.9.5, and a target name of
>`arm-*-linux-gnuoldld' implies an older version. Config.guess can tell the
>difference so there should be no reason for concern unless you set target
>names by hand. This will probably end up being backported to my 2.9.5
>patchset sooner or later.
Was that finally done?
--
Fran�ois Desloges
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
