This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils newer than 2.9.1
We are using binutils 2.9.4 for m68k-rtemself (really elf32-m68k). We have not yet
identified any problems with this target. The code was checked out of the CVS
repository two weeks ago.
The only difference I saw between 2.9.1 and .2.9.4 as an end-user is in the linker
scripts. 2.9.4 has new directives which were used extensively in the sample elf
linker scripts. Specifically, SORT, KEEP, and CONSTRUCTORS were introduced. For
elf targets, we elected to stick with 2.9.4 and to use the new linking directives.
I have no experience with 2.9.4 and powerpc, other than building the toolsuite for
powerpc-rtems from the cygwin source. It built! Once my colleague finishes the
port of RTEMS to the MBX860, I intend to try 2.9.4 from the CVS repository, just
to keep all my cross development tools at the same version level. I believe she is
doing all of her work with 2.9.1.
I think that powerpc-rtems, powerpc-eabi and powerpc-linux are all the same in the
sense that they produce elf32-powerpc code. The difference is only in the default
compilation flags and default libraries and startup files. Any bug in binutils
will likely show up for all three targets.
I have no strong opinion about using 2.9.1 or 2.9.4. Neither one has caused us
problems (that we know about).
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:22:14 +0000
> From: Brendan Simon <brendan@dgs.monash.edu.au>
>
> If I want later versions of binutils (I am unsure of how necessary this is)
> then it would appear that CVS would be the best option and to checkout
> snapshots that are known to be reasonably reliable. Would you suggest this
> as a wise thing or to just stick with the stock standard 2.9.1 ? Maybe the
> cygwin sources of binutils might be the best option ? My main targets of
> interest are powerpc-eabi, powerpc-linux and m68k-???
>
> I don't have a good answer to this question. binutils 2.9.1 is
> certainly better tested than the CVS snapshots. For GNU/Linux, H.J.'s
> snapshot releases are well tested. For anything else, I guess you
> just have to balance newer sources with lack of testing. I don't know
> how to resolve that balance for you.
>
> If you have specific bugs that you want fixed, consider looking
> through the CVS sources and picking out the bug fixes. If you can't
> do that, using the CVS sources may be too risky for you, since you may
> run into bugs you can't fix.
>
> Ian
--
Charles-Antoine Gauthier
Research Officer
Software Engineering Group
Institute for Information Technology
National Research Council of Canada
Ottawa, ON, Canada
K1A 0R6