Bug#647288: libffi: Simplify PowerPC assembly and avoid CPU-specific string instructions

2012-01-10 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
On Nov 12, 2011, at 15:56, Anthony Green wrote: > On 11/1/2011 4:55 PM, Moffett, Kyle D wrote: >> On Nov 01, 2011, at 11:53, Kyle Moffett wrote: >>> Please consider applying. > > I like this patch, and have applied it after a minor tweak (cache > cif->rtype->size

Bug#650318: Fwd: [Bug target/50906] e500 exception unwinding under "-Os" causes SIGSEGV

2011-12-06 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
Hello, The fix for GCC PR target/50906 has now been applied to gcc-4_6-branch, so it should hopefully soon be automatically picked up in the Debian GCC sources from that branch. For reference, the commit log is attached below. Cheers, Kyle Moffett On Dec 05, 2011, at 22:47, amodra at gcc dot gn

Bug#647324: gcj-4.6: Wrong MULTIARCH_DIRNAME on powerpcspe (is "powerpc-linux-gnu")

2011-11-02 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
On Nov 02, 2011, at 17:07, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 11/02/2011 04:09 PM, Moffett, Kyle D wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I have verified that gcc-4.6 and gcj-4.6 both build successfully >> on "powerpcspe" with that patch. It turns out gcj needs to build >> a

Bug#647324: gcj-4.6: Wrong MULTIARCH_DIRNAME on powerpcspe (is "powerpc-linux-gnu")

2011-11-02 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
Hello, I have verified that gcc-4.6 and gcj-4.6 both build successfully on "powerpcspe" with that patch. It turns out gcj needs to build an embedded copy of libffi (is that OK under Debian policy?), so I also had to apply the new libffi patch in #647288 [1]. This patch modifies a case conditiona

Bug#647288: libffi: Simplify PowerPC assembly and avoid CPU-specific string instructions

2011-11-01 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
On Nov 01, 2011, at 11:53, Kyle Moffett wrote: > After upgrading to a new version of GNU ld for PowerPC e500, I started > seeing build errors on e500 systems again. It turns out that the > PowerPC "string instructions" are unimplemented on PPC440 and most other > embedded cores, and also cause une

Re: stage updates did break gcj, gdc, gnat builds

2011-10-28 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
Matthias, On Oct 27, 2011, at 06:56, Matthias Klose wrote: > So, r5655 did break these builds. Reverted the patch again, and checked in a > fix > which doesn't break the native builds. Could you verify that it still fixes > the > cross cases? It seems to be OK right now, thanks for your help

Bug#644338: libffi: Build errors on PowerPC e500, test-suite failures on PowerPC soft-float

2011-10-12 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
Hi Matthias! On Oct 12, 2011, at 12:26, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10/05/2011 12:12 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> Package: libffi >> Severity: normal >> Tags: patch upstream >> User: debian-powerpc...@breakpoint.cc >> Usertags: powerpcspe >> >> The Debian-Ports "powerpcspe" architecture can't curren

Bug#644338: libffi: Build errors on PowerPC e500, test-suite failures on PowerPC soft-float

2011-10-12 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
On Oct 12, 2011, at 12:26, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10/05/2011 12:12 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> Package: libffi >> Severity: normal >> Tags: patch upstream >> User: debian-powerpc...@breakpoint.cc >> Usertags: powerpcspe >> >> The Debian-Ports "powerpcspe" architecture can't currently build the

Bug#645021: gcc-4.6: build error on REVERSE_CROSS (files in "4.6.1" dir instead of "4.6")

2011-10-12 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
On Oct 11, 2011, at 17:47, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10/11/2011 10:49 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> Source: gcc-4.6 >> Version: 4.6.1-15 >> Severity: wishlist >> >> When building in REVERSE_CROSS mode (IE: when trying to build a native >> compiler for another architecture with an existing cross-comp

Bug#645003: libppl-swi: Disable SWI-Prolog support for stage1 architecture bootstrap

2011-10-12 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
Hi Matthias, On Oct 11, 2011, at 14:24, Matthias Klose wrote: > why use graphite at all for the stage1 build? Well, this isn't really the stage1 build of GCC. When bootstrapping an architecture I want to avoid rebuilding packages as much as possible, which means that I want a "final-stage" GCC t

Bug#644439: Bootstrap stage1 cross-compiler depends on nonexistent libgcc

2011-10-11 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
On Oct 08, 2011, at 17:20, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Oct 08, 2011, at 14:47, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> On Oct 08, 2011, at 08:36, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> except that it does break the native build :-/ pretty please test cross >>> patches >>> with a native build too. >>> >>> with_libgcc is unset wit

Bug#644764: FTBFS: asm/errno.h: No such file or directory (due to multiarch)

2011-10-10 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
reassign 644764 gcc-defaults 1.107 fixed 644764 1.108 close 644764 thanks On Oct 10, 2011, at 13:55, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10/10/2011 07:52 PM, Moffett, Kyle D wrote: >> This build failure is for a native build of >> an amd64 "gcc-4.6" on an amd64 system (See the

Bug#644764: FTBFS: asm/errno.h: No such file or directory (due to multiarch)

2011-10-10 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
Matthias, On Oct 10, 2011, at 04:14, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10/09/2011 08:49 PM, Moffett, Kyle D wrote: >> Matthias Klose wrote: >>> I don't see this. is /usr/include/asm a symlink? is gcc-multilib the recent >>> version in unstable? If this is a local b

Bug#644764: FTBFS: asm/errno.h: No such file or directory (due to multiarch)

2011-10-09 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
Hi Matthias! Thanks for your help! On Oct 09, 2011, at 04:47, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10/08/2011 10:31 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> Source: gcc-4.6 >> Version: 4.6.1-13 >> Severity: serious >> Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the >> past) >> >> When trying t

Bug#644439: Bootstrap stage1 cross-compiler depends on nonexistent libgcc

2011-10-08 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
On Oct 08, 2011, at 14:47, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Oct 08, 2011, at 08:36, Matthias Klose wrote: >> >> except that it does break the native build :-/ pretty please test cross >> patches >> with a native build too. >> >> with_libgcc is unset with this patch. the stage stuff should go after setti

Bug#644439: Bootstrap stage1 cross-compiler depends on nonexistent libgcc

2011-10-08 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
Hi! On Oct 08, 2011, at 08:36, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10/07/2011 01:30 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: >> W dniu 07.10.2011 11:48, Marcin Juszkiewicz pisze: When compiling a GCC stage1 cross-compiler, the generated control file depends on "libgcc" even when one is not built, making it

Bug#644338: Fwd: libffi: Build errors on PowerPC e500, test-suite failures on PowerPC soft-float

2011-10-07 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
rom: "Moffett, Kyle D" > Date: October 04, 2011 18:12:27 EDT > To: Debian Bug Tracking System > Subject: libffi: Build errors on PowerPC e500, test-suite failures on PowerPC > soft-float > > Package: libffi > Severity: normal > Tags: patch upstream > User: de

Bug#579780: closed by Matthias Klose (Bug#579780: fixed in gcc-4.4 4.4.4-2)

2010-05-19 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
reopen 579780 thanks On 2010/05/18 12:45, "Debian Bug Tracking System" wrote: > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > which was filed against the gcc-4.4 package: > > #579780: powerpcspe: Preliminary architecture port and minor bugfix > > It has been closed by Matthias K

Bug#579779: debian/rules2: Fix REVERSE_CROSS build (host == target,host != build)

2010-05-18 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
On 2010/05/18 16:49, "Matthias Klose" wrote: > On 18.05.2010 20:41, Moffett, Kyle D wrote: >> On 2010/05/17 09:28, "Matthias Klose" wrote: >>> On 30.04.2010 19:51, Kyle Moffett wrote: >>>> Package: gcc-4.4 >>>> Version: 4.4.2-9 &g

Bug#579779: debian/rules2: Fix REVERSE_CROSS build (host == target,host != build)

2010-05-18 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
On 2010/05/17 09:28, "Matthias Klose" wrote: > On 30.04.2010 19:51, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> Package: gcc-4.4 >> Version: 4.4.2-9 >> Severity: normal >> Tags: patch sid >> >> If "CC" is left unset, it defaults to "cc" and causes the compiler to >> be built to run on the build system instead of on

Bug#579780: PowerPC SPE Port Summary Page

2010-04-30 Thread Moffett, Kyle D
On 2010/04/30 14:53, "Kyle D Moffett" wrote: > On 2010/04/30 14:18, "Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" > wrote: >> I think you don't have to write the complete history each time. You >> could write "new port" followed by a link to wiki page which has some >> more informations. > > Good point; I'll make