eCos cross compiler questions [was: gcc 2.95 cross compiler]
Wed Sep 1 02:14:00 GMT 1999
Jonathan Larmour <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> William Gatliff wrote:
> > Do the "enhancements" in the eCos-specific gcc show up in the gcc archives
> > anywhere, or are they only being distributed via the eCos web page?
> > My question really is: is anyone else testing the new gcc features, other than
> > eCos users?
> Yes, these are standard gcc features now.
> These options should definitely work in gcc-2.95, which I heartily recommend.
Probably you mean gcc-2.95.1 or newer ... gcc-2.95 crashes when tried for SH
target, crashes when building Insight on Linux etc. For a SH-target builder
the fixed SH3E support (an undefined '__set_fpscr' with egcs-1.1.2/newlib) and
the added SH4 support (-m4, -m4-single, -m4single-only) can make gcc-2.95.1
much better than the earlier one (egcs-1.1.2)...
The eCOS-1990321 sources for ARM have the config files for thumb-elf, which
target gcc-2.95.x don't yet know -- moving the configure-entry and the
thumb-elf config files in 'gcc/config/arm' to gcc-2.95.1 sources and building a
cross-compiler for the target seemed to work however... No torture tests etc.
made, but compiling newlib, libstdc++ etc. with it and running the generated
executables in the simulator with Insight-19990823 worked nicely...
Ok, the arm-coff, arm-elf and thumb-coff were already supported in gcc-2.95.1,
so for just completeness the thumb-elf would be nice...
BTW, the libraries under 'elf' (-fno-leading-underscores) and 'normal
(-mno-interwork) seemed to be equal size as the 'default' ones (without
using these options = it uses them as default), which could hint them being
just vain... So I removed these variations from the MULTILIB definitions and
removed the libs for them... Any opinions?
Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to email@example.com
More information about the crossgcc