On 2016-Jul-11, at 1:51 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
> Quick top-post just to indicate that I just did gcc 4.2.1 based cross-builds
> for TARGET_ARCH=powerpc and TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 and they completed. They
> had analogous warnings to what clang (powerpc) and powerpc64-gcc (powerpc64)
> produced.
Quick top-post just to indicate that I just did gcc 4.2.1 based cross-builds
for TARGET_ARCH=powerpc and TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 and they completed. They had
analogous warnings to what clang (powerpc) and powerpc64-gcc (powerpc64)
produced.
I do not have a context to test powerpc64 or powerpc kbo
On 2016-Jul-11, at 11:30 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 2016-Jul-11, at 11:04 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
>
>> On 2016-Jul-11, at 6:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>>>
>>> It is not 64-bit only; like the normal loader, it can load both 32-bit and
>>> 64-bit kernels. Those two flags are probably obs
On 2016-Jul-11, at 11:04 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 2016-Jul-11, at 6:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>>
>> It is not 64-bit only; like the normal loader, it can load both 32-bit and
>> 64-bit kernels. Those two flags are probably obsolete at this point and were
>> for compatibility with pre
On 2016-Jul-11, at 6:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>
> It is not 64-bit only; like the normal loader, it can load both 32-bit and
> 64-bit kernels. Those two flags are probably obsolete at this point and were
> for compatibility with pre-2.17.5 versions of binutils. Can you do a test
> build
It is not 64-bit only; like the normal loader, it can load both 32-bit
and 64-bit kernels. Those two flags are probably obsolete at this point
and were for compatibility with pre-2.17.5 versions of binutils. Can you
do a test build with the -CFLAGS+= -Wa,-mppc64bridge line removed?
-Nathan
On
Is the following something that should be updated something like is indicated
below for 11.0-BETA1? Is kboot powerpc64 specific?
# svnlite diff /usr/src/sys/boot/powerpc/Makefile
Index: /usr/src/sys/boot/powerpc/Makefile
===
--- /usr
