Hello all,
I've found the cause of my problem - it's binutils 2.17.50.
Using ld 2.18, or even 2.17.90 creates workable libstdc++.so.
Regards,
Sergei
Sergei Poselenov wrote:
Hello all,
I've built the above cross-compiler and ran the GCC testsuite.
Noted a lot of c++ tests faile
Hello Martin,
Martin Guy wrote:
On 9/26/08, Sergei Poselenov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello all,
I've built the above cross-compiler and ran the GCC testsuite.
Noted a lot of c++ tests failed with the same output:
...
terminate called after throwing an instance of '
Hello all,
I've built the above cross-compiler and ran the GCC testsuite.
Noted a lot of c++ tests failed with the same output:
...
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'int'
terminate called recursively
Aborted
...
Compiler details:
Reading specs from
/opt/eldk-4.2-arm-2008-09-24/usr
Hello,
A naive question. For the same toolchain (gcc-3.2, binutils-2.11.94,
glibc-2.3.1) I've got the following binary sizes (busybox, built
with -Os):
MIPS:
bash# size busybox
textdata bss dec hex filename
1650805564 10168 180812 2c24c busybox
bash# ls -l busy
Hello all,
I'm building a powerpc cross of gcc-4.2.2 on RH 7.2 host and ran into this:
-> gdb build/genattrtab.orig core.20423
GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (5.2-2)
Copyright 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to chang
Hello all,
I've got the ICE on the gcc.c-torture/compile/2718.c test:
powerpc-linux-gnuspe-gcc -c -O3 -funroll-loops 2718.c
2718.c: In function 'baz':
2718.c:14: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
S
Hello all,
I've tried to build gcc-4.2.2 cross to E500 target,
configured with "--target=powerpc-linux-gnuspe
--disable-multilib --with-newlib --with-cpu=8540
--enable-cxx-flags=-mcpu=8540 --enable-e500_double"
but failed with the following message:
...
In file included from
/work/psl/tmp/cro
Hello all,
I've filed bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34903
Regards,
Sergei
Andrew Haley wrote:
David Edelsohn wrote:
Andrew Haley writes:
Andrew> I suspect that the real reason for the change in save/restore
is because
Andrew> not using lmw/stmw is faster. That's just a
Hello Andrew,
Andrew Haley wrote:
Sergei Poselenov writes:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> > Now, I sympathize that in your particular case you have a code size
> > regression. This happens: when we do optimization in gcc, some code
> > bases will lose out. All that we ca
Hello Gabriel,
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:55:19PM +0300, Sergei Poselenov wrote:
Hello,
I've just noted an error in my calculations: not 40%, but 10%
regression (used gdb to do the calculations and forgot to convert
inputs to float). Sorry.
But the problem
Hello Andrew,
Now, I sympathize that in your particular case you have a code size
regression. This happens: when we do optimization in gcc, some code
bases will lose out. All that we can promise is that we try not to
make it worse for most users.
What we can do is compare your code that has g
d space
anymore.
Andrew Haley wrote:
Sergei Poselenov writes:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm using the ppc-linux gcc-4.2.2 compiler and noted the code
> size have increased significantly (about 40%!), comparing with
> old 4.0.0 when using the -Os option. Same code, same compile
Hi Duncan,
Duncan Sands wrote:
Hi,
I'm using the ppc-linux gcc-4.2.2 compiler and noted the code
size have increased significantly (about 40%!), comparing with
old 4.0.0 when using the -Os option. Same code, same compile-
and configuration-time options. Binutils are differ
(2.16.1 vs 2.17.50),
Hello all,
I'm using the ppc-linux gcc-4.2.2 compiler and noted the code
size have increased significantly (about 40%!), comparing with
old 4.0.0 when using the -Os option. Same code, same compile-
and configuration-time options. Binutils are differ
(2.16.1 vs 2.17.50), though.
I've looked at th
14 matches
Mail list logo
