Re: toolchain, was Re: bogl: don't know screen type 1
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 01:43:14AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > The patches posted to the binutils mailing list are incomplete. The
> > binutils patch at
> > http://people.debian.org/~smarenka/m68k/tls/
> > is broken according to Kolla:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2009/07/msg00001.html
> > But in that post (June 28) Maxim recommends using mainline binutils, and
> > since then we have HJL binutils-220.127.116.11.14 released, "...based on
> > binutils 2009 0722 in CVS on sourceware.org..." So I guess I should start
> > there.
> > I understand that the current GCC (4.4) lacks the necessary patches, and
> > 4.5 is still uncooked (and that's a scary prospect). Can someone confirm
> > that this is the necessary patch for 4.4:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01024.html
> > Presumably not this one?
> > http://people.debian.org/~smarenka/m68k/tls/gcc_patch2
> > (and gcc_patch1 is clearly broken... perhaps it was actually the same
> > thing before being mangled... Stephen, I don't think this "/tls" directory
> > is helping any.)
> Shall I remove it then?
I'd remove it.
The gcc commit in question is this one,
which appears to be the very one in the mailing list archive at the URL
above (you can download a raw version at that URL).
A quick visual shows that tls/gcc_patch2 doesn't match the commit (the
revision numbers in the diff confirm that it is older).