On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:38:27AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:45:28PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Given that the initial compile of put.o seems correct it is hard
to see how this is an assembler of compiler issues.
You are disassembly the final .gdb file, and
Hi Lennart,
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:45:28PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Given that the initial compile of put.o seems correct it is hard
to see how this is an assembler of compiler issues.
You are disassembly the final .gdb file, and that would pretty much
rule out
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 12:13:00PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
No, its not.
The .gdb file is created by the ld replacement script. elf2flt
only does the conversion from ELF to FLT, nothing more.
Have a look at the ld script, typically /usr/local/m68k-uclinux/bin/ld,
to see how it creates the
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:17:26PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Yeah I finally figured out that part. That's when I discovered that
gcc 4.3.3 was turning my -m5200 into -m5206 which didn't match what my
uclibc directories were using, and that it also causes the -p flag to
be passed to
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:45:28PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Given that the initial compile of put.o seems correct it is hard
to see how this is an assembler of compiler issues.
You are disassembly the final .gdb file, and that would pretty much
rule out elf2flt - since its input is the ELF
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:37:27PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Hi Lennart,
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 12:10:56PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:59:41AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Couple of things I notice off-hand.
The _start code looks
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:59:41AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Couple of things I notice off-hand.
The _start code looks completely different for the 2 cases.
How did you configure uClibc for the gcc-4.3.2 case?
What .config file did you use?
I used the .config from the 0.9.27 build, with as
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 02:50:16PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Sorry, I'm late to the thread.
We're using gcc 4.3.1 with uClibc snapshot 20081118, and binutils
2.18.50.0.1
I didn't set it up, but we're using buildroot to build it, and it took
some fiddling.
Target is 2.6.26 on
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 12:10:56PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:59:41AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Couple of things I notice off-hand.
The _start code looks completely different for the 2 cases.
How did you configure uClibc for the gcc-4.3.2 case?
What
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:59:41AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Couple of things I notice off-hand.
The _start code looks completely different for the 2 cases.
How did you configure uClibc for the gcc-4.3.2 case?
What .config file did you use?
Compare the disassembly of puts in both cases.
Hi Lennart,
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 12:10:56PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:59:41AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Couple of things I notice off-hand.
The _start code looks completely different for the 2 cases.
How did you configure uClibc for
Hi Lennart,
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:59:41AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Couple of things I notice off-hand.
The _start code looks completely different for the 2 cases.
How did you configure uClibc for the gcc-4.3.2 case?
What .config file did you use?
Compare the
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 08:29:32PM +, Jamie Lokier wrote:
It's probably easier to look at the GCC source itself, look at what
oldabi sets differently.
Perhaps. Of course it would be nice of gcc 4.3 actually built when
configured for oldabi, but it doesn't. If it did I could actually find
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:58:39AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:24:00AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Send the disassemblies to this list. Someone might be able to spot
a problem.
OK, slightly large but here goes.
I have compiled with gcc 4.1.1 + uclibc 0.9.27
On Feb 25, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
So does gcc 4.3.x work for anyone on m68knommu with uClibc? Am I
trying
something hopeless here, or am I just configuring or compiling it
wrong
perhaps.
Sorry, I'm late to the thread.
We're using gcc 4.3.1 with uClibc snapshot
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 02:46:04PM -0500, Allon Stern wrote:
On Feb 25, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
So does gcc 4.3.x work for anyone on m68knommu with uClibc? Am I
trying
something hopeless here, or am I just configuring or compiling it
wrong
perhaps.
Sorry, I'm late
Hi Lennart,
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:24:00AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Send the disassemblies to this list. Someone might be able to spot
a problem.
OK, slightly large but here goes.
I have compiled with gcc 4.1.1 + uclibc 0.9.27 which works and with gcc
4.3.2 +
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
You will need to disassemble a simple program and see what code is
generated. Look for differences on the same code compiled with the
older toolchain and the newer.
Yeah, although of course if it is the ABI change I am not sure how I would
recognize something
Hi Lennart,
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
I have tried for quite a number of days (or maybe a couple of weeks now)
to get a working m68knommu setup with something resembling current code.
I have managed to take the build-uclinux-tools.sh along with the versions
of software it wants and get a
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:57:47PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
As a data point I regularly use a gcc-4.2.4 with binutils 2.18 for
m68knommu development, and that works fine. I haven't tried a gcc-4.3
yet.
gcc-4.3 is the one that changed the ABI of course.
For some reason my first attempt at
20 matches
Mail list logo
