Re: Is this a bug?

2022-02-08 Thread Nick Clifton 

Hi Zane,


Hi. I am trying to compile binutils 2.37. But when the Makefile run > gcc.exe: 
fatal error: no input files
What do I do?


There is some suspicious quoting in the command line, starting with:

  "-DBINDIR=\\C:/test/normalGcc/bin\"

(Note how the closing quote is escaped)

And ending with:

  ../../binutils-2.37/bfd/archive.c"

It looks to me like the command line defining one very long symbol
called BINDIR which contains a lot more than just a path to a bin
directory.

I have no idea why this is happening though.  Perhaps it is related
to how you ran the configure script ?

Cheers
  Nick

Is this a bug?

2022-02-04 Thread Zane Asher Post 
Hi. I am trying to compile binutils 2.37. But when the Makefile runs

gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../binutils-2.37/bfd
"-DBINDIR=\\C:/test/normalGcc/bin\" -DLIBDIR=\"C:/test/normalGcc/lib\" -I.
-I../../binutils-2.37/bfd -I../../binutils-2.37/bfd/../include
-DHAVE_i386_elf32_vec -DHAVE_iamcu_elf32_vec -DHAVE_i386_coff_vec
-DHAVE_elf32_le_vec -DHAVE_elf32_be_vec -W -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wshadow -Wstack-usage=262144
-I../../binutils-2.37/bfd/../zlib -g -O2 -MT archive.lo -MD -MP -MF
.deps/archive.Tpo -c -o archive.lo ../../binutils-2.37/bfd/archive.c" -o
archive.o

I get an error

gcc.exe: fatal error: no input files

What do I do?

Re: Is this a bug? Can do mov r0, #676

2005-10-02 Thread Jay Monkman 
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 11:27:38AM -0500, Jay Monkman wrote:
> 
>>I'm using a cross assembler for ARM, running on x86, and seeing something 
>>weird.
>>
>>Here's the test program:
>>
>>foo:
>>  mov r0, #675
>>
...

> 
> You should take another look at the ARM instruction set documentation;
> immediate moves are limited to eight bits _plus a rotate_.
> 

I understand that. I just didn't realize the assembler was outsmarting me. I
assumed the shift had to be explicitly listed in the assembly code. Now that I
look, I don't see any way to explicitly specify the shift.

I had thought the immediate argument could be 12 bits, so I was surprised when
one 12 bit value worked, but another didn't. When I reread the ARM
documentation, and I saw that the operand was limited to 8 bits, I was more
confused.

Thanks for helping un-confuse me.


___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

Re: Is this a bug? Can do mov r0, #676

2005-10-02 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz 
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 11:27:38AM -0500, Jay Monkman wrote:
> I'm using a cross assembler for ARM, running on x86, and seeing something 
> weird.
> 
> Here's the test program:
> 
> foo:
>   mov r0, #675
> 
> Assemble with this:
> arm-linux-as -o foo.o foo.S
> 
> Here's what happens:
>   arm-linux-as -o foo.o foo.s
>   foo.s: Assembler messages:
>   foo.s:0: Warning: end of file not at end of a line; newline inserted
>   foo.s:2: Error: invalid constant -- `mov r7,#675'
> 
> If the number is 676 it works fine.
> 
> I've tried with the following binutils versions with identical results.
>   2.13.2.1
>   2.15.
>   2.16.1
> 
> Immediate operands are limited to 8 bits. Then why does 676 work?

You should take another look at the ARM instruction set documentation;
immediate moves are limited to eight bits _plus a rotate_.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC


___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

Is this a bug? Can do mov r0, #676

2005-10-01 Thread Jay Monkman 
I'm using a cross assembler for ARM, running on x86, and seeing something weird.

Here's the test program:

foo:
mov r0, #675

Assemble with this:
arm-linux-as -o foo.o foo.S

Here's what happens:
arm-linux-as -o foo.o foo.s
foo.s: Assembler messages:
foo.s:0: Warning: end of file not at end of a line; newline inserted
foo.s:2: Error: invalid constant -- `mov r7,#675'

If the number is 676 it works fine.

I've tried with the following binutils versions with identical results.
2.13.2.1
2.15.
2.16.1

Immediate operands are limited to 8 bits. Then why does 676 work?


___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

Re: Is this a bug?

2005-08-29 Thread Alan Modra 
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:03:01PM +0200, Gonzalo Jimenez Sanchez wrote:
> regs.s:445: Error: operand out of range (0xaa39 is not between
> 0x8000 and 0x7fff)
> 
> line 445 in that file is: li  r3,0xAA39

Error in your source.  Write "li r3,0xaa39".  (Which is the value
you will find in r3 after executing this insn.)

> init8260.s:1067: Error: operand out of range (0x is not between
> 0x8000 and 0x7fff)
> 
> line 1067 in that file is: addir3,0,0x

Another error.  "addi r3,0,0x" (or more clearly
"li r3,0x").

> In 8260_int.s you can find in line 385:addi r2,0,0xFFFD  # Load
> the mask - 0xFFFD

Similarly.

> My change:
> { "li",OP(14),DRA_MASK,   PPCCOM, { RT, SISIGNOPT 
> } },
> 
> { "addi",OP(14),  OP_MASK,PPCCOM, { RT, RA0, SISIGNOPT
> } },

No, this is wrong.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre


___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils