Ok, i've nearly finished my manual install of 3.1r8... I've got two problems, im missing /lib/modules/2.4.27-amiga/modules.dep ( does anyone have it handy? )
And a "passwd: Authentication token manipulation error" I've checked the perms of /etc/shadow they are shadow root and correct rw. so is passwd And i can so far only boot into single user mode. But that will work for now. -Mike 2009/9/22 mike <[email protected]>: > Seems im not the only soul feeling the bloat > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10358024-16.html > > I havent seen any 68k linux benchmarks for this yet > http://cshandley.co.uk/temp/membench/ > http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29569&forum=14 > > It would be interesting if someone could compare a binary compiled > with gcc 2.95 to 3.33 3.40 and or 4.4 for linux, on various systems > even. To see if the slowdown has any consistency. > > -Mike > > > 2009/9/14 <[email protected]>: >> >> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >> >>> [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> > On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >>> > >>> > > Finn Thain wrote: ... >>> > > >>> > > > 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 >>> > > I think GCC 4.4 should be good enough. >>> > >>> > I tried patching 4.4.1 and the patch was rejected. It expects >>> > m68k_legitimize_address() to have been declared and defined, but that >>> > routine isn't in gcc-4.4. >>> >>> m68k.c:m68k_legitimize_address() was macro m68k.h:LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS(), >>> you need to move the hunk to m68k.h. >>> >> >> Thanks for the tip. >> >> Here's a second cut. This one removes the m68k_tls_symbol_p() routine and >> inlines that logic in the LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS macro (avoids a reference to >> m68k_tls_symbol_p() from explow.o). The TARGET_HAVE_TLS macro wasn't >> defined in explow.c so I changed it to HAVE_AS_TLS. >> >> It appears to work, but I won't be able to test any binary produced by >> this compiler for a week or so. >> >> Finn >> >> >> --- gcc-m68k-support-for-tls.patch 2009-09-14 15:11:39.893286532 +1000 >> +++ gcc-m68k-support-for-tls-backport.patch 2009-09-14 >> 15:11:34.563287784 +1000 >> @@ -574,13 +574,7 @@ >> >> enum reg_class regno_reg_class[] = >> { >> -@@ -143,11 +144,13 @@ static tree m68k_handle_fndecl_attribute >> - static void m68k_compute_frame_layout (void); >> - static bool m68k_save_reg (unsigned int regno, bool interrupt_handler); >> - static bool m68k_ok_for_sibcall_p (tree, tree); >> -+static bool m68k_tls_symbol_p (rtx); >> - static rtx m68k_legitimize_address (rtx, rtx, enum machine_mode); >> - static bool m68k_rtx_costs (rtx, int, int, int *, bool); >> +@@ -146,6 +147,7 @@ static tree m68k_handle_fndecl_attribute >> #if M68K_HONOR_TARGET_STRICT_ALIGNMENT >> static bool m68k_return_in_memory (const_tree, const_tree); >> #endif >> @@ -613,16 +607,6 @@ >> && crtl->uses_pic_offset_table) >> insn = emit_insn (gen_load_got (pic_offset_table_rtx)); >> } >> -@@ -1431,6 +1441,9 @@ m68k_legitimize_sibcall_address (rtx x) >> - rtx >> - m68k_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx, enum machine_mode mode) >> - { >> -+ if (m68k_tls_symbol_p (x)) >> -+ return m68k_legitimize_tls_address (x); >> -+ >> - if (GET_CODE (x) == PLUS) >> - { >> - int ch = (x) != (oldx); >> @@ -1849,7 +1862,7 @@ m68k_illegitimate_symbolic_constant_p (r >> && !offset_within_block_p (base, INTVAL (offset))) >> return true; >> @@ -957,7 +941,7 @@ >> return orig; >> >> gcc_assert (reg); >> -@@ -2196,13 +2421,257 @@ legitimize_pic_address (rtx orig, enum m >> +@@ -2196,13 +2421,244 @@ legitimize_pic_address (rtx orig, enum m >> base == reg ? 0 : reg); >> >> if (GET_CODE (orig) == CONST_INT) >> @@ -1164,19 +1148,6 @@ >> + return orig; >> +} >> + >> -+/* Return true if X is a TLS symbol. */ >> -+ >> -+static bool >> -+m68k_tls_symbol_p (rtx x) >> -+{ >> -+ if (!TARGET_HAVE_TLS) >> -+ return false; >> -+ >> -+ if (GET_CODE (x) != SYMBOL_REF) >> -+ return false; >> -+ >> -+ return SYMBOL_REF_TLS_MODEL (x) != 0; >> -+} >> + >> +/* Helper for m68k_tls_referenced_p. */ >> + >> @@ -1414,6 +1385,18 @@ >> >> #define REG_OK_FOR_BASE_P(X) \ >> m68k_legitimate_base_reg_p (X, REG_STRICT_P) >> +@@ -777,7 +778,10 @@ __transfer_from_trampoline () >> \ >> + #define COPY_ONCE(Y) if (!copied) { Y = copy_rtx (Y); copied = ch = 1; } >> + #define LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS(X,OLDX,MODE,WIN) \ >> + { register int ch = (X) != (OLDX); \ >> +- if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS) \ >> ++ if (HAVE_AS_TLS && (GET_CODE (X) == SYMBOL_REF) && \ >> ++ (SYMBOL_REF_TLS_MODEL (X) != 0)) >> \ >> ++ m68k_legitimize_tls_address (X); \ >> ++ else if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS) \ >> + { int copied = 0; \ >> + if (GET_CODE (XEXP (X, 0)) == MULT) \ >> + { COPY_ONCE (X); XEXP (X, 0) = force_operand (XEXP (X, 0), 0);} \ >> @@ -974,6 +975,9 @@ do { if (cc_prev_status.flags & CC_IN_68 >> assemble_name ((FILE), (NAME)), \ >> fprintf ((FILE), ",%u\n", (int)(ROUNDED))) >> -- >> 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
