On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 01:43:14AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > > > > 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? I'd remove it. The gcc commit in question is this one, http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=147654 which appears to be the very one in the mailing list archive at the URL above (you can download a raw version at that URL). A quick visual shows that tls/gcc_patch2 doesn't match the commit (the revision numbers in the diff confirm that it is older). Finn -- 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
