Hello, On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:34:05 +0100 Max Kellermann <m...@duempel.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > I have spent some time on rebasing the cegcc-binutils branch on > upstream version 2.21.1. That was a big knot which became smaller and > smaller each time I rebased incrementally on a new release. > Fortunately, many of the cegcc patches were merged upstream, and > disappeared from my rebasing branch. Were they? I remember reading some mail from Pedro Alves that GNU folks considered removing support for arm-wince-pe targets from gcc and/or binutils, so the above is for sure the great news! > > I rebased on the git import hosted at http://repo.or.cz/w/binutils.git > > This is the result: > > http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/max/cegcc-binutils.git/log/?h=2.21.1-experimental > > It's still very unclean, the commit messages describe changes that > have disappeared, and more (documented) patches need to be separated > out and submitted to upstream. I don't understand those, because I've > never read the binutils code before, and I've never written a linker > script. Does anybody want to comment, and help cleaning them up? > > One change that I havn't pushed over is the patch that relocates > ".bss" to ".data". This bloats the generated binaries for no visible > advantage. Who knows why this was added? (It's a post-0.59 change) The direction of thought might be "DLLs"? > I'm not uploading binaries this time, because there was little > interest in my other announcements previously. Well, we're for sure listening, but it's likely that you're the only active developer so far. (I believe I wrote that usecase I had in mind for cegcc - to compile lot of open-source wince software and create a "distro" - didn't work, as cegcc lacks lot of features still, so after spending couple of weeks patching w32api for each new app I finally gave up once understood that OLE stuff couldn't realistically be made work anyway). But thanks for keep working on this - I guess you have stable and worthy usecase (maintaining one software across lot of platforms), and I personally get questions about cegcc in email from time to time, so people keep using it. > I just want to make > sure that nobody else wastes time by replicating my effort. I might > upload new binaries when my gcc 4.6 port is finished. > > Max -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d _______________________________________________ Cegcc-devel mailing list Cegcc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
