This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See crosstool-NG for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 4/29/2013 1:23 PM, Martin Guy wrote:
Hi! I'm writing because I've updated the AVR32 support in crosstool-ng to gcc-4.2.4, gcc-4.3.{3,6}, gcc-4.4.{3,7}, binutils-2.22 and all versions of newlib, giving smaller code size at every step (which was the whole point). However I don't feel that it's appropriate to include these patches in mainline crosstool-ng for two reasons: 1) They're enormous: about a megabyte of patches for each version of gcc, binutils and newlib version, and that's *after* trimming them to the bare minimum, increasing the patches/ directory from 10MB to 15MB. 2) They need to modify toolchain components outside the avr32 files. These changes are most likely harmless in binutils but in gcc they introduce extra mysterious transformations in cpu-agnostic parts of gcc, sometimes claiming in commentary that these changes should be OK for other processors. Is there a way in GCC to say, in generic code, "#if building a compiler targetting AVR32"? It sems unlikely as it foes against the whole philosophy of keeing architecture-specific code in their own subdirectories, but would make it possible to produce AVR32 patches that don't change the behaviour of the tools when they are compiling for other CPU architectures. In the light of this, I've been hacking a copy of crosstool-ng at http://spaces.atmel.com/gf/project/ct-ng The only changes are the addition of patch files, all of which have "avr32" in the name and the addition of a default .config file.
I'm asking this in the general sense. Why doesn't Atmel submit their patches upstream? Even the regular AVR requires multiple unsubmitted patches (19 if I remember correctly) and that port is in the FSF repository. I saw similar bitrot and aging this weekend when I checked on the msp430. Just unsubmitted code hanging around getting older and further from the main stream. As an embedded FOSS community, we need to be encouraging vendors.. prodding them.. to submit their tools upstream.
Can you let me know how this affects mainline crosstool-ng? Whether wholesale support for new architectures is welcome or whether maybe a tarball in the contrib/ directory would be more suitable? Thanks again M -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
-- Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 Support Available (256) 722-9985 -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |