Hi Wolfgang, Thanks for the follow-up. I'll gather the information you requested, and also go through the build process (in case this is an outstanding issue). It'll take a few days to gather the relevant information. But will do so ASAP. I also have an email drafted to submit to the GCC mailing list for additional input. Best Regards, Patrick
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Wolfgang Denk <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Patrick, > > In message <CAJV+WJ1E_cpARTbX1P1DFWHe8bRJrYyjopMpBZfmrj0s1d= > [email protected]> you wrote: > > > > We have been working with your ELDK 5.1.1 toolchain (powerpc-4xx) for > some > > weeks now, and had noticed inconsistent behavior between our old firmware > > image (generated with ELDK 4.1) and new firmware image (generated with > ELDK > > 5.1.1). > > Specifically we were seeing inconsistent results from one particular code > > block which was doing quite a bit of bit manipulation. > > Can you share a minimal piece of code that shows the problem? > > Do you see any compiler warnings for this code when building with > "-Wall -pedantic" ? > > Did you consider reporting this on the GCC mailing list? > > > We are advising internally in our development group that the following > > flags be added to CFLAGS when building any code with the ELDK 5.1.1 > > OPP_FLAG_SETTINGS = -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-bit-ccp > > I really would like to see the difference in the generated code > between ELDk 4.1, 4.2, 5.0 and 5.1 (with and withoutt hese options). > So it would really be helful if you could provide a minimal example of > code that shows this. > > > Don't know if this is related to the following: > > > > - http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.bugs/338704 > > - http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.bugs/304411 > > Hm... I can't tell for sure, but at first glance t doesn't look so. At > least the symptoms are different: the bugs referenced here result > either in a SIGSEGV crash, or in an "internal compiler error" abort, > but not in generation of incorrect code. > > > This is our current workaround, and planned development path. However, we > > wanted to know if you had seen similar issues, or know of other means of > > configuring GCC to use this as default behavior rather than adding to > flags > > to each makefile/build scripts. > > I was / am not aware of any such issues. > > If you want to change the default settings of GCC, you can change it's > configuration in the build scripts > ("meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-configure-common.inc") and rebuild > everything. > > > Also, how are the prebuilt images built (glibc, gdb, etc) i.e. assuming > > some optimization level enabled. > > Yes, indeed these are built with optimization enabled. > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk > > -- > DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel > HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany > Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [email protected] > The human race is a race of cowards; and I am not only marching in > that procession but carrying a banner. - Mark Twain >
_______________________________________________ eldk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/eldk
