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

Re: glibc 2.2 on MIPS

Hello all,

My question is somehow related on the problems showed in this email. Sorry if this
will bother you.
I am trying to setup a cross toolchain for mips and  I have to use binutils 2.10
and gcc 2.95.2 and glibc2.1.3. Currently I am trying to setup binutils 2.10 with
egcs1.0.3a and with glibc.2.0.6 . Do you have any patches for binutils 2.10 or for
gcc2.95.2 for mips ? If you have and if you have some ideeas please tell me ..

Thank You

Christoph Martin wrote:

> Hi Ralf,
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:04:44 +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:24:21AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > > We are trying :) I am currently basing all my Debian-mips(el) things
> > > on glibc 2.0.6. It is the only stable solution right now. I am experimenting
> > > with the glibc 2.1.94-3 debian source package which i managed to get
> > > compiled with unmodified cvs binutils and gcc + the gcse patch.
> > >
> > > Ralf reported bugs in the ld where he send me a patch. With that patch
> > > i get a "Bus Error" from the ld.so within the glibc build.
> > There patch is ok; you get those bus errors because there are bugs in
> > both ld and binutils that in most cases compensate each other.  If you
> > fix only one of them you get all sorts of funnies ...
> I just tried to build glibc-2.2 (CVS-2000-12-28) for debian-mips and
> it still has the "Bus Error" problem. We are currently using binutils
> and gcc 2.95.2 + CVS from 2.95 branch.
> Can you please post both patches, so that we can verify which one is
> missing in our build.
> > Even with the fixes ld is not yet perfect - for example emacs and X still
> > fail.
> The gcc/binutils combination seams to work correctly as far as I can
> see. I managed to compile xfree 4.0.2 linked agains 2.1.95-1.1. What
> problems did you have with X?
> Christoph
n:POPOVICI;Nicolae Octavian 
tel;cell:+40 93 605020
org:SC Silicon Service SRL;Software
title:Software engineer
fn:Nicolae Octavian POPOVICI

Reply to: