Re: toolchain, was Re: bogl: don't know screen type 1

[Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim@codesourcery.com>]

fthain@telegraphics.com.au wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> 
>> Finn Thain wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> I understand that the current GCC (4.4) lacks the necessary patches, 
>>> and 4.5 is still uncooked (and that's a scary prospect). Can someone 
>>> confirm that this is the necessary patch for 4.4: 
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01024.html
>> I think GCC 4.4 should be good enough.
> 
> I tried patching 4.4.1 and the patch was rejected. It expects 
> m68k_legitimize_address() to have been declared and defined, but that 
> routine isn't in gcc-4.4.

m68k.c:m68k_legitimize_address() was macro m68k.h:LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS(), 
you need to move the hunk to m68k.h.

> 
> So, I edited the patch (see diff below). What bothers me is that this 
> removes the call to the new m68k_tls_symbol_p() routine:
> 
> ../../gcc-4.4.1/gcc/config/m68k/m68k.c: At top level:
> ../../gcc-4.4.1/gcc/config/m68k/m68k.c:2553: warning: 'm68k_tls_symbol_p' defined but not used
> 
> The compiler appears to work, but I haven't run any executable it produced 
> as yet. When we get eglibc-2.10 I plan to run the testsuites on '040 
> hardware, which is going to take a long time to complete. It would be nice 
> to know in advance whether this naive attempt at a backport is likely to 
> work or not (?)

It will fail to process __thread variables.

--
Maxim