Re: [Mspgcc-users] New MSP430 GCC version release available!

2015-10-17 Thread Lev Serebryakov
Hello DJ, Friday, October 16, 2015, 9:12:20 PM, you wrote: BTW, "gnu89" helps, thank you. > That should be built as part of building gcc/ > so you probably have a problem earlier on that you didn't see in your logs... Nope. It was build here ("root" is sources/tools from tarball):

Re: [Mspgcc-users] New MSP430 GCC version release available!

2015-10-17 Thread Lev Serebryakov
Hello Lev, Saturday, October 17, 2015, 10:33:35 PM, you wrote: > Makefile in "msp430-elf/libgcc" contains: > > libgcc_topdir = ../.././libgcc/.. > host_subdir = . > gcc_objdir = $(MULTIBUILDTOP)../../$(host_subdir)/gcc > > "host_subdir" is clearly invalid :) Really, This problem

Re: [Mspgcc-users] New MSP430 GCC version release available!

2015-10-17 Thread DJ Delorie
Two questions: 1. Are you cross-building a compiler? I.e. is the host you're building *on* different than the host (not target, which is msp430) you're building *for*? (This is called a "canadian cross" and is much more complicated than a regular cross compiler). (one typically

Re: [Mspgcc-users] New MSP430 GCC version release available!

2015-10-17 Thread Lev Serebryakov
Hello DJ, Saturday, October 17, 2015, 10:55:52 PM, you wrote: > 1. Are you cross-building a compiler? I.e. is the host you're >building *on* different than the host (not target, which is msp430) >you're building *for*? (This is called a "canadian cross" and is >much more

Re: [Mspgcc-users] New MSP430 GCC version release available!

2015-10-17 Thread David W. Schultz
On 10/17/2015 03:35 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello DJ, > > Saturday, October 17, 2015, 10:55:52 PM, you wrote: > > >> 1. Are you cross-building a compiler? I.e. is the host you're >>building *on* different than the host (not target, which is msp430) >>you're building *for*? (This

Re: [Mspgcc-users] New MSP430 GCC version release available!

2015-10-17 Thread Lev Serebryakov
Hello DJ, Friday, October 16, 2015, 9:12:20 PM, you wrote: > That should be built as part of building gcc/ > so you probably have a problem earlier on that you didn't see in your logs... Other problem: tcl doesn't respect DESTDIR setting, so whole package could not be properly "staged" for