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] |
Esben Haabendal <esben.haabendal@dev.prevas.dk> writes: > "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> writes: > >> Esben, All, >> >> On Friday 28 September 2012 14:47:56 Esben Haabendal wrote: >>> "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> writes: >>> > Then, naybe it's gcc-4.6.3 (and earlier? maybe up to 4.7.1?) that should >>> > be fixed, instead. >>> >>> Yes, but it don't know what fixed this in 4.7.2, so it is an uphill >>> battle backporting this to all older GCC releases. >> >> Yep, that can be tedious... >> >> Let's say that at least gcc-4.7.2 is required for m68k, then. >> >>> > I've updated your sample to use 4.7.2 instead of 4.6.3. I have no way to >>> > test m68k noMMU; could you give it a spin, please? >>> >>> I will. >>> >>> Late yesterday, I unfortunately found another ICE issue (in 4.7.2). It >>> has already been reported: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53833 >> >> That bug report contains a one-liner patch. Not sure it is valid, but at >> least that's a starting point. > > The patch removes the atomic ops. Not really a proper fix... > > I'd rather use an older gcc with optimization disabled in uClibc. Or does gcc detect this automagically, so that there is no problems in just leaving them out? /Esben -- 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] |