The thing is, its been proven that gcc produces slower and slower 68k binaries, its probably not the linker in binutils at all see. http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?p=519318 and ( not 100% sure if its the correct thread, but the natami team have noticed the issue http://www.natami.net/knowledge.php?b=3¬e=2&z=9M0ieT
Including Gunnar Von Boehn in this now, cause they've done alot more research, and can probably fill in what freescale have, and havent done. I suspect they have been tweaking the code for newer "68k's" or coldfires, rather than branching it off? Cheers -Spike 2009/9/5 Stephen R Marenka <[email protected]>: > On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 01:43:14AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: >> >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Stephen R Marenka wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 12:16:27AM +0200, mike wrote: >> > > Btw, i noticed an error >> > > http://people.debian.org/~smarenka/d-i/m68k/images/daily/build_nativehd.log >> > > E: Couldn't find package libnss-dns-udeb >> > > make[2]: *** [stamps/get_udebs-nativehd-stamp] Error 100 >> > > make[1]: *** [_build] Error 2 >> > > make: *** [build_nativehd] Error 2 >> > >> > Yep. debian-installer dailies are now *dead* until we get a modern libc >> > working. >> >> I wonder whether there are debian source packages for binutils, gcc and >> glibc having TLS/NPTL support for m68k. > > I'd be surprised if that were the case. > >> The patches posted to the binutils mailing list are incomplete. The >> binutils patch at >> http://people.debian.org/~smarenka/m68k/tls/ >> is broken according to Kolla: >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2009/07/msg00001.html >> >> But in that post (June 28) Maxim recommends using mainline binutils, and >> since then we have HJL binutils-2.19.51.0.14 released, "...based on >> binutils 2009 0722 in CVS on sourceware.org..." So I guess I should start >> there. >> >> I understand that the current GCC (4.4) lacks the necessary patches, and >> 4.5 is still uncooked (and that's a scary prospect). Can someone confirm >> that this is the necessary patch for 4.4: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01024.html >> Presumably not this one? >> http://people.debian.org/~smarenka/m68k/tls/gcc_patch2 >> (and gcc_patch1 is clearly broken... perhaps it was actually the same >> thing before being mangled... Stephen, I don't think this "/tls" directory >> is helping any.) > > Shall I remove it then? > >> Or perhaps there is a known-good gcc 4.5 snapshot (FWIW, I'd much rather >> patch a debian compiler instead, which means 4.4 or preferably older.) > > It would be wonderful to have debian gcc 4.4 building on m68k. It > never has. > >> As for eglibc, there are a number of branches listed here, >> http://www.eglibc.org/repository >> The question is, which branch, snapshot or release might meet be suitable? >> >> With this information, I could attempt to build a toolchain from upstream >> sources, or figure out whether or not the debian archive has the necessary >> source packages... > > The life is fast ebbing from debian/m68k as far as I can tell. I'm not > sure if there is sufficient energy to revitalize it. I'd be delighted to > be proven wrong. > > Peace, > > Stephen > > -- > Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! > <[email protected]> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
