Re: install.texi and avr (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Denis Chertykov wrote:
>> The avr section currently has this:
>>
>>   We @emph{strongly} recommend using binutils 2.13 or newer.
>>
>> Okay to yank it?
> We can remove this line.

Done thusly, thank you.

Gerald

2017-03-13  Gerald Pfeifer  

* doc/install.texi (Specific) : Remove reference to
binutils 2.13.

Index: doc/install.texi
===
--- doc/install.texi(revision 246109)
+++ doc/install.texi(working copy)
@@ -3396,8 +3396,6 @@
 @uref{http://www.amelek.gda.pl/avr/,,http://www.amelek.gda.pl/avr/}
 @end itemize
 
-We @emph{strongly} recommend using binutils 2.13 or newer.
-
 The following error:
 @smallexample
 Error: register required
> 

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Joseph Myers]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

I think we should set a global minimum binutils version (for all targets 
using GNU binutils) and give an error at configure time for too-old 
binutils.  But not at the present development stage.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:59:28 PDT (-0700), ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> I looked at our stuff (RISC-V) and there's almost nothing in there.
>> Is there something I should add?  I looked at the aarch64 stuff in the
>> "host/target specific issues start here" section and there's some notes
>> about binutils-2.24. We'll require binutils-2.28 (the first version that
>> we're upstream in), I can add a note in that section about RISC-V as
>> well if you think it's appropriate.
>
> I am generally a fan of keeping documentation short (lest it is
> skipped or skimmed), but as long as necessary.
>
> In your case I don't think artificially blowing up the section on RISC-V
> to match others would be helpful.  However, given that binutils 2.28 is
> so brand new, that I'd definitely mention.
>
> (My proposals/patches yesterday are about removing references to ten
> year old versions of binutils from install.texi, quite the other end
> of the spectrum.)

Makes sense.  I think I found a few other problems in ours as well.  How does
this look?

[PATCH] RISC-V documentation cleanups

Re: install.texi and avr (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Denis Chertykov]

2017-03-12 15:32 GMT+04:00 Gerald Pfeifer :
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:
>>
>> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
>> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
>> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions
>> around that.
>
> The avr section currently has this:
>
>   We @emph{strongly} recommend using binutils 2.13 or newer.
>
> Okay to yank it?

We can remove this line.

Denis

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Gerald Pfeifer]

Hi Palmer,

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> I looked at our stuff (RISC-V) and there's almost nothing in there.  
> Is there something I should add?  I looked at the aarch64 stuff in the 
> "host/target specific issues start here" section and there's some notes 
> about binutils-2.24. We'll require binutils-2.28 (the first version that 
> we're upstream in), I can add a note in that section about RISC-V as 
> well if you think it's appropriate.

I am generally a fan of keeping documentation short (lest it is
skipped or skimmed), but as long as necessary.

In your case I don't think artificially blowing up the section on RISC-V 
to match others would be helpful.  However, given that binutils 2.28 is
so brand new, that I'd definitely mention.

(My proposals/patches yesterday are about removing references to ten
year old versions of binutils from install.texi, quite the other end
of the spectrum.)

Gerald

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 04:27:26 PDT (-0700), ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
> I noticed that the target-specific sections in doc/install.texi
> need a little lover and care.  It would be great could you have
> a look and streamline/update before the GCC 7 release.

I looked at our stuff (RISC-V) and there's almost nothing in there.  Is there
something I should add?  I looked at the aarch64 stuff in the "host/target
specific issues start here" section and there's some notes about binutils-2.24.
We'll require binutils-2.28 (the first version that we're upstream in), I can
add a note in that section about RISC-V as well if you think it's appropriate.

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:47:42 +0100
> From: Gerald Pfeifer 

> (May there be further changes to consider for cris-*?)

Nothing actively pursued and no news on related issues.

brgds, H-P

RE: install.texi and mips-*-* (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Moore, Catherine]

> -Original Message-
> From: Gerald Pfeifer [mailto:ger...@pfeifer.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 7:38 AM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Moore, Catherine
> <catherine_mo...@mentor.com>; Matthew Fortune
> <matthew.fort...@imgtec.com>
> Subject: install.texi and mips-*-* (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi
> love and care)
> 
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> > binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> > Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions
> > around that.
> 
> The mips-*-* currently has this:
> 
>   The assembler from GNU binutils 2.17 and earlier has a bug in the way
>   it sorts relocations for REL targets (o32, o64, EABI).  This can cause
>   bad code to be generated for simple C++ programs.  Also the linker
>   from GNU binutils versions prior to 2.17 has a bug which causes the
>   runtime linker stubs in very large programs to
>   be incorrectly generated.  GNU Binutils 2.18 and later (and snapshots
>   made after Nov. 9, 2006) should be free from both of these problems.
> 
> (Even that goes back more than 10 years.)
> 
> Okay to yank it?

Yes, thank you.  I will review the rest of the MIPS doc in install.texi this 
week.
Catherine

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Certainly!  Thanks.

Done thusly; thanks for the quick response, H-P.

(May there be further changes to consider for cris-*?)

Gerald

2017-03-12  Gerald Pfeifer  
 
* doc/install.texi (Specific) : No longer
refer to binutils 2.11/2.12 minimum.
 
Index: doc/install.texi
===
--- doc/install.texi(revision 246077)
+++ doc/install.texi(working copy)
@@ -3472,9 +3472,6 @@
 @samp{ETRAX 100 LX} by default.
 @end table
 
-For @code{cris-axis-elf} you need binutils 2.11
-or newer.  For @code{cris-axis-linux-gnu} you need binutils 2.12 or newer.
-
 Pre-packaged tools can be obtained from
 @uref{ftp://ftp.axis.com/@/pub/@/axis/@/tools/@/cris/@/compiler-kit/}.  More
 information about this platform is available at

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:34:25 +0100 (CET)
> From: Gerald Pfeifer 
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> > binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> > Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> > around that.
> 
> The cris-axis-elf / cris-axis-linux-gnu section currently has this:
> 
>   For @code{cris-axis-elf} you need binutils 2.11
>   or newer.  For @code{cris-axis-linux-gnu} you need binutils 2.12 or newer.
> 
> Okay to yank it?

Certainly!  Thanks.

brgds, H-P

install.texi and sparc-*-linux* (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The section on sparc-*-linux* currently has this:

  GCC versions 3.0 and higher require binutils 2.11.2 and glibc 2.2.4
  or newer on this platform.  All earlier binutils and glibc
  releases mishandled unaligned relocations on @code{sparc-*-*} targets.

Okay to yank it?

Gerald

install.texi and mips-*-* (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The mips-*-* currently has this:

  The assembler from GNU binutils 2.17 and earlier has a bug in the way
  it sorts relocations for REL targets (o32, o64, EABI).  This can cause
  bad code to be generated for simple C++ programs.  Also the linker
  from GNU binutils versions prior to 2.17 has a bug which causes the
  runtime linker stubs in very large programs to
  be incorrectly generated.  GNU Binutils 2.18 and later (and snapshots
  made after Nov. 9, 2006) should be free from both of these problems.

(Even that goes back more than 10 years.)

Okay to yank it?

install.texi and i?86-*-linux* (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The i?86-*-linux* section currently has this:

  As of GCC 3.3, binutils 2.13.1 or later is required for this platform.
  See @uref{http://gcc.gnu.org/PR10877,,bug 10877} for more information.

Okay to yank it?

Gerald

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The cris-axis-elf / cris-axis-linux-gnu section currently has this:

  For @code{cris-axis-elf} you need binutils 2.11
  or newer.  For @code{cris-axis-linux-gnu} you need binutils 2.12 or newer.

Okay to yank it?

Gerald

install.texi and avr (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:
> 
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The avr section currently has this:

  We @emph{strongly} recommend using binutils 2.13 or newer.

Okay to yank it?

Gerald

install.texi and arm (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:
> 
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The arm-*-eabi section currently has this:

  ARM-family processors.  Subtargets that use the ELF object format
  require GNU binutils 2.13 or newer.  Such subtargets include:
  @code{arm-*-netbsdelf}, @code{arm-*-*linux-*}
  and @code{arm-*-rtemseabi}.

Okay to yank this?

Gerald

install.texi and alpha (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:
> 
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The alpha*-*-* section currently has this:

  We require binutils 2.11.2 or newer.
  Previous binutils releases had a number of problems with DWARF 2
  debugging information, not the least of which is incorrect linking of
  shared libraries.

Okay to yank this?

Gerald

Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Gerald Pfeifer]

I noticed that the target-specific sections in doc/install.texi
need a little lover and care.  It would be great could you have
a look and streamline/update before the GCC 7 release.

Thanks!


Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:

References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
around that.

Gerald