gcc-2.95 broken on PPC?
Quoted 7 lines · The Denkster
Quoted 3 lines
However, bugs #1 (
zlib.c) and #3 (div64.h) disappear if I compile my kernels with gcc-3.2.2 instead of 2.95.4, which is a strong indication that 2.95.4 is broken on PPC. Is this something that'sThis is speculation only. We use gcc-2.95.4 as part of our ELDK in all of our projects, and a lot of people are using these tools, too. We definitely see more problems with gcc-3.x compilers.
Hi Wolfgang, when you say you see more problems with gcc-3.x compilers, what is x? I'd understand if you saw problems
with gcc-3.0.*, but I had hoped that gcc-3.2.2 would compile
good kernels for ppc.
(Me, I'm still using Montavista Linux 2.0's gcc-2.95.3 to build my ppc kernels, but am looking for an excuse to switch to gcc-3.2.* or gcc-3.3.*.)
- Dan
Signature · 3 lines
Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045
Quoted 9 lines · Dan Kegel
Quoted 7 lines · The Denkster
Quoted 3 lines
However, bugs #1 (
zlib.c) and #3 (div64.h) disappear if I compile my kernels with gcc-3.2.2 instead of 2.95.4, which is a strong indication that 2.95.4 is broken on PPC. Is this something that'sThis is speculation only. We use gcc-2.95.4 as part of our ELDK in all of our projects, and a lot of people are using these tools, too. We definitely see more problems with gcc-3.x compilers.
Quoted 8 lines
Hi Wolfgang, when you say you see more problems with gcc-3.x compilers, what is x? I'd understand if you saw problems with gcc-3.0.*, but I had hoped that gcc-3.2.2 would compile good kernels for ppc.
(Me, I'm still using Montavista Linux 2.0's gcc-2.95.3 to build my ppc kernels,
but am looking for an excuse to switch to gcc-3.2.* or gcc-3.3.*.)
- Dan
Both 3.2 and 3.3 are working well for us here. 3.2's received much better testing. I think we tripped up about four bugs in 3.2.2 that needed patches, but that's well below par compared to 2.95.
Signature · 2 lines
Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Quoted 8 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
Quoted 3 lines · The Denkster
This is speculation only. We use gcc-2.95.4 as part of our ELDK in all of our projects, and a lot of people are using these tools, too. We definitely see more problems with gcc-3.x compilers.
Hi Wolfgang, when you say you see more problems with gcc-3.x compilers, what is x? I'd understand if you saw problems
There were serios problems with 3.0. I never tested 3.1. I believed 3.2 was OK, but I every now and then problems pop up that seem to be compiler related. Never found time to investigate, though.
Quoted 4 lines
with gcc-3.0.*, but I had hoped that gcc-3.2.2 would compile
good kernels for ppc.
(Me, I'm still using Montavista Linux 2.0's gcc-2.95.3 to build my ppc kernels, but am looking for an excuse to switch to gcc-3.2.* or gcc-3.3.*.)
I just heard that gdb 5.2.1 shows some problems when built with gcc 3.2 as sipped with RH-8.0, and the problem goes away when compiling with 2.95.[34]. The information might be wrong or a misinterpreta- tion, but I'm still suspicious.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 3 lines
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: [email protected] Why is an average signature file longer than an average Perl script??
Quoted 8 lines · Dan Kegel
Hi Wolfgang, when you say you see more problems with gcc-3.x compilers, what is x? I'd understand if you saw problems with gcc-3.0.*, but I had hoped that gcc-3.2.2 would compile good kernels for ppc.
(Me, I'm still using Montavista Linux 2.0's gcc-2.95.3 to build my ppc kernels,
but am looking for an excuse to switch to gcc-3.2.* or gcc-3.3.*.)
We've had a "problem" with 3.2. Some conditional new code looked like this:
#define LONG_MACRO \ asm \ asm \ asm \ #ifdef FOO \ asm \ asm \ #else \ asm \ #endif \ asm \ asm
Interesting, isn't it? The fun part was that it was compiling cleanly in 3.2, but not in 2.95.
Sadly, noone bothered to compile this with 2.95 for a long time.
Jörn
Signature · 4 lines
More computing sins are committed in the name of efficiency (without necessarily achieving it) than for any other single reason - including blind stupidity. -- W. A. Wulf