Getting Closer

[Kai Ruottu]

Mark Palmerino wrote:

> Kai writes:

> > But was it CPU32-code ?  Using the '-mno-bitfield -msoft-float' could be
> > quite the same as the '-m68332'. The '-m68020' is the default, so:
> >
> > m68k-coff-gcc -mno-bitfield -msoft-float -oformat=srec -o hello hello.c
> 
> Well, I don't know if it was CPU32-code.  In fact, I *thought* I was able to
> use the -m68332 flag more successfully than I seem to be able to now...

 Please forget this, just try the '-m68332'...

> /usr/local/m68k-coff/bin/ld -m m68kcoff -T /usr/local/m68k-coff/lib/rm_rom.ld
> -oformat=srec -o hello -L/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/m68k-coff/2.8.1/msoft-float
> -L/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/m68k-coff/2.8.1
> -L/usr/local/m68k-coff/lib/msoft-float
> -L/usr/local/m68k-coff/lib /var/tmp/cc0005331.o -lgcc -lc -lbcc -lc -lgcc

because the 'lib/msoft-float' will be used, not the 'lib/m68332' for the libs.

> I fear I still don't have my cross-compiler and associated directories set
> up right. Does the above tell you anything?

 Not using the 'libc.a' and the BCC-libraries, 'libbcc.a' ('-lc -lbcc -lc')
at all and seeing what it will then need should be best...
 
> I wonder if I should start all over and generate the system for just the
> 68332 as you (Kai) suggested in a previous email.

 When it is unclear what the Windows-hosted compiler has besides the 'rm_rom.ld'
and the 'rm_crt0.o', this would be vain. Solving what on earth the prebuilt
tools use as the libs is much more important...

Cheers, Kai


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com