[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: toolchain, was Re: bogl: don't know screen type 1

fthain@telegraphics.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:

Finn Thain wrote:

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
I think GCC 4.4 should be good enough.

I tried patching 4.4.1 and the patch was rejected. It expects m68k_legitimize_address() to have been declared and defined, but that routine isn't in gcc-4.4.

m68k.c:m68k_legitimize_address() was macro m68k.h:LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS(), you need to move the hunk to m68k.h.

So, I edited the patch (see diff below). What bothers me is that this removes the call to the new m68k_tls_symbol_p() routine:

../../gcc-4.4.1/gcc/config/m68k/m68k.c: At top level:
../../gcc-4.4.1/gcc/config/m68k/m68k.c:2553: warning: 'm68k_tls_symbol_p' defined but not used

The compiler appears to work, but I haven't run any executable it produced as yet. When we get eglibc-2.10 I plan to run the testsuites on '040 hardware, which is going to take a long time to complete. It would be nice to know in advance whether this naive attempt at a backport is likely to work or not (?)

It will fail to process __thread variables.


Reply to: