On Thursday 12 March 2009 05:42:06 pm Sergio wrote: > Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > On Thursday 12 March 2009 04:30:41 pm Sergio wrote: > >> Hi list, > >> > > > > Woohoo. > > Gulp! > > > run "make shell/ash.s" with both compilers and try to see what's different > > in ash.s. Post the ash.s files to the list. > > Ehmm... What's different is a lot of thing... so I send the files :) > > Ah, the compiler version of the bad one is 3.3.1 not 3.4.3
So, if newer compiler works for you, what is the problem? Let's do it this way. * Try 1.13.3, there is not much sense in debugging custom ash.c. * Explain why is it a problem that *older* gcc produces a broken executable. * If using new, working gcc is somehow not acceptable for you, do this: build ash from bbox 1.13.3 with gcc 3.3.1, verify that it is broken, then build ash from bbox 1.13.3 with successively newer gcc's. find a pair of closest gcc versions which made it (dis)appear. Send ash.s from both of them. If you will find out that *all* gcc 3.3.x (up to latest) produce broken ash, it would point strongly to a gcc bug. To quickly check it, try latest gcc 3.3.x first (do not go through 3.3.2, 3.3.3....) -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
