This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: *-rtems and binutils 2.14.92
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 13:54:30 -0400
- Subject: Re: *-rtems and binutils 2.14.92
- References: <40A111FA.2060808@OARcorp.com>
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have managed to build the following targets with 2.14.92
> on a Linux host.
>
> arm-rtems4.7 h8300-rtems4.7
> i386-rtems4.7 i960-rtems4.7
> m68k-rtems4.7 mips64-rtems4.7
> mips-rtems4.7 powerpc-rtems4.7
> sh-rtems4.7 sh-rtemself4.7
> sparc-rtems4.7 tic4x-rtems4.7
>
> I could not successfully build or32-rtems. I do not know if
> any or32 target is expected to build.
or32-elf had only 3 LD testsuite failures, according to Nick's posted
results, so this may be a configury issue.
> I am in the process of building all RTEMS configurations with
> those binutils and gcc 3.3.3/newlib 1.11.0. Those were built
> using binutils 2.14 if that matters to anyone. I am midway
> in the m68k in building RTEMS but wanted to pass this much
> along:
>
> h8300 - bad expression error on file compiled by gcc with
> "-mh -mint32" is that helps.
>
> I trimmed the assembly language down to this:
>
> .h8300h
> .section .text
> cmp.l #--2147483648,er2
>
> gcc invoked gas with only --traditional-format as an
> argument -- there were no CPU flag options if that matters.
>
> Hmmm... that "--" shouldn't be there. Is this a gcc 3.3.3 bug
> that only a newer binutils has caught? Does anyone recognize it?
I believe that the -- used to be parsed as - ( - 2147483648 ), and
Nathan added a patch to prevent this because most people expected --
and ++ to mean some sort of increment/decrement. Certainly the
expression above doesn't make much sense; that's -MIN_INT ....
--
Daniel Jacobowitz