Actually I think it's time to move to new versions of the tools. That
includes gcc itself. Vincent has done excellent work on getting a cegcc
to work based on gcc-4.3.2, we should pick that up.
Opinions ?
Danny
On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 17:56 +0100, mosfet wrote:
> Pedro,
>
> I forgot to ask you if you have time, would it be possible to incorporate
> into cegcc a recent version
> of binutils >= 2.18.50.
> I was looking into mingw mailing list and I found this :
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "FWIW recent 2.18.50 snapshots have changed the handling of section
> alignment. Now, alignmemt is encoded in section header of object file,
> the same as done by MS tools. This may cause some backward
> compatibility issues with older libs that need 16 byte alignment for
> SSE2 objects. Please report any such problems to binutils list."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Beware if you choose a 2.19 version I read this :
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Chris Sutcliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: binutils-2.19
> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel
> Date: 2008-12-02 02:14:53 GMT (3 days, 14 hours and 36 minutes ago)
>
> > So, it clearly works fine, when built natively. However, I have been
> > unable to get it to build cross-hosted; first, there appears to be a
> > rogue dependency, which invalidates the bfd.info file during the
> > secondary configure step. On working around that, by touching the
> > affected file, and running make again, I get a multiple definition of
> > `main', and a bunch of unresolved references when linking ld-new:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Very disappointing, since 2.18.50 builds OOTB, with exactly the same
> > configuration options.
>
> Given that the native build works, are we good, or do we need to
> hold-off while the cross-compiler is sorted out?
>
> Chris
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> My goal is to generate the most similar code between cegcc and Visual
> because it will
> help us to track the problem down.
> So if we could merge .edata and .idata into .rdata and remove the align
> characteristics from section
> it would be a great step.
>
> Thanks
>
> Vincent R.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
> The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help
> pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Cegcc-devel mailing list
> Cegcc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
>
--
Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
Cegcc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
