Building SID

[Michael Ambrus]

I've got the files thanx. They seem broken however....

The following is the first place where it breaks (I noticed that the
build system will not respect neither 'make -S'  nor  'export
MAKEFLAGS="-S" &&  make' - it seems that the recursive build is using
'make -k' no matter what I do).

../../../../src/sid/component/cgen-cpu/sh/sh2.h:16: error:
'sh_common_model' was not declared in this scope
../../../../src/sid/component/cgen-cpu/sh/sh2.h:16: error: wrong
number of template arguments (8, should be 5)
:
:
Which leads to this:

:
:
../../../../src/sid/component/cgen-cpu/sh/sh4-nofpu-defs.h:22: error:
forward declaration of 'class sh4_nofpu::sh4_nofpu_cpu'
../../../../src/sid/component/cgen-cpu/compCGEN.cxx:418: error:
invalid use of undefined type 'class sh4a_nofpu::sh4a_nofpu_cpu'
../../../../src/sid/component/cgen-cpu/sh/sh4a-nofpu-defs.h:22: error:
forward declaration of 'class sh4a_nofpu::sh4a_nofpu_cpu'
../../../../src/sid/component/cgen-cpu/compCGEN.cxx:426: error: cannot
convert 'sh5::sh5_compact_cpu*' to 'sid::component*' in return
../../../../src/sid/component/cgen-cpu/compCGEN.cxx:428: error: cannot
convert 'sh5::sh5_32media_cpu*' to 'sid::component*' in return
../../../../src/sid/component/cgen-cpu/compCGEN.cxx:430: error: cannot
convert 'sh5::sh5_64media_cpu*' to 'sid::component*' in return
make[7]: *** [compCGEN.lo] Error 1
make[6]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[5]: *** [all] Error 2

gcc used is the native one for my system which is  i486-linux-gnu
(version 4.0). Note that the standard for forward declarations to
templates has changed (in case you're using an older compiler).

Best
/Michael


On 2/26/07, Dave Brolley <brolley@redhat.com> wrote:
> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >
> >> Hers comes the lines where the build breaks:
> >> make[4]: *** No rule to make target `sh64-elf-sid', needed by `all-am'.
> >> The ChangeLog mentions  'sh-elf-sid,sh5-elf-sid,sh64-elf-sid: New
> >> files' so I'm guessing the files were just not committed yet.
> >>
> >
> > That's probably right, it must be an oversight.
> >
> >
> You're right. It was an oversight. Now corrected.
>
> Dave
>
>
>