On Friday 13 March 2009 04:05:53 pm Sergio wrote: > I have gcc 3.3.6 on my PC, on the server there are gcc 3.3.1 and 3.4.3 > For the final build I must use the server but the newer (3.4.3) compiles a > BB that segfaults on the target board (perhaps I should spend my time on > this problem) so I have to use the older 3.3.1 which works. > > > Let's do it this way. > > > > * Try 1.13.3, there is not much sense in debugging custom ash.c. > > ash.c from 1.13.3 works with both gcc 3.3.1 and 3.3.6 (segfault with 3.4.3) > but the custom ash.c is needed for another problem posted on this list in > date 12/15/2008.
This fix is included in current version. Did you think we keep the fix secret and do not apply it to cvs? Debugging a custom source is a bad idea. I am interested in having the trunk fixed, and tips of a few recent branches (say, 1.13.x ... 1.10.x). > > * 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. > > Not so simple to set up such a test. Why? Aren't you building your toolchains from source? What prevents you from building more versions of them? If you built gcc 3.3.1, building gcc 3.3.2 is usually easy. > > 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. > > As I wrote, compiler 3.3.6 on my PC creates a good BB so there is at least > one "good" 3.3.x Your PC and your target board are likely to have different architecture. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
