This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ 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] |
Hi, just in case someone is interested: Calling as with option -many is hardcoded in gcc. A colleague found those links which might be helpful for seeing the "reasoning" behind: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21091 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-05/msg01244.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-05/msg01247.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-05/msg00376.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-05/msg00357.html The problem I had was that the compiler/assemler accepts e.g. dcbzl for an e500v2 which leads to a SIGILL. The solution for me is up to now - to patch away -many in gcc - to allow sync / eieio (in addition to equivalent msync/mbar) in as for e500 because otherwise you cannot compile almost nothing of the tool chain. Aditionally, in binutils 2.20 there is the mistake that an e500 was believed to be an e500mc (but this has apparently been corrected in 2.21). Regards Titus Am Di, 22.03.2011, 14:49 schrieb Titus von Boxberg: > Hi, > > I'm using ct-ng generated tool chains (gcc 4.5.1, binutils 2.20) > for PowerPCs, a 603e and a e500v2. > > Both compilers pass -many to the assembler which disables > checking the assembly code for cpu specific instructions > (or better, for instructions the cpu does NOT provide). > > Does someone know what the reasoning is and if there's > some knob to turn it off? -- 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] |