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

[mike <localgost@gmail.com>]

Ok, i've nearly finished my manual install of 3.1r8...
I've got two problems, im missing
/lib/modules/2.4.27-amiga/modules.dep ( does anyone have it handy? )

And a "passwd: Authentication token manipulation error"
I've checked the perms of /etc/shadow they are shadow root and correct
rw. so is passwd

And i can so far only boot into single user mode. But that will work for now.

-Mike

2009/9/22 mike <localgost@gmail.com>:
> Seems im not the only soul feeling the bloat
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10358024-16.html
>
> I havent seen any 68k linux benchmarks for this yet
> http://cshandley.co.uk/temp/membench/
> http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29569&forum=14
>
> It would be interesting if someone could compare a binary compiled
> with gcc 2.95 to 3.33 3.40 and or 4.4 for linux, on various systems
> even. To see if the slowdown has any consistency.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> 2009/9/14  <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>:
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the tip.
>>
>> Here's a second cut. This one removes the m68k_tls_symbol_p() routine and
>> inlines that logic in the LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS macro (avoids a reference to
>> m68k_tls_symbol_p() from explow.o). The TARGET_HAVE_TLS macro wasn't
>> defined in explow.c so I changed it to HAVE_AS_TLS.
>>
>> It appears to work, but I won't be able to test any binary produced by
>> this compiler for a week or so.
>>
>> Finn
>>
>>
>> --- gcc-m68k-support-for-tls.patch      2009-09-14 15:11:39.893286532 +1000
>> +++ gcc-m68k-support-for-tls-backport.patch     2009-09-14 15:11:34.563287784 +1000
>> @@ -574,13 +574,7 @@
>>
>>  enum reg_class regno_reg_class[] =
>>  {
>> -@@ -143,11 +144,13 @@ static tree m68k_handle_fndecl_attribute
>> - static void m68k_compute_frame_layout (void);
>> - static bool m68k_save_reg (unsigned int regno, bool interrupt_handler);
>> - static bool m68k_ok_for_sibcall_p (tree, tree);
>> -+static bool m68k_tls_symbol_p (rtx);
>> - static rtx m68k_legitimize_address (rtx, rtx, enum machine_mode);
>> - static bool m68k_rtx_costs (rtx, int, int, int *, bool);
>> +@@ -146,6 +147,7 @@ static tree m68k_handle_fndecl_attribute
>>  #if M68K_HONOR_TARGET_STRICT_ALIGNMENT
>>  static bool m68k_return_in_memory (const_tree, const_tree);
>>  #endif
>> @@ -613,16 +607,6 @@
>>        && crtl->uses_pic_offset_table)
>>      insn = emit_insn (gen_load_got (pic_offset_table_rtx));
>>  }
>> -@@ -1431,6 +1441,9 @@ m68k_legitimize_sibcall_address (rtx x)
>> - rtx
>> - m68k_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx, enum machine_mode mode)
>> - {
>> -+  if (m68k_tls_symbol_p (x))
>> -+    return m68k_legitimize_tls_address (x);
>> -+
>> -   if (GET_CODE (x) == PLUS)
>> -     {
>> -       int ch = (x) != (oldx);
>>  @@ -1849,7 +1862,7 @@ m68k_illegitimate_symbolic_constant_p (r
>>          && !offset_within_block_p (base, INTVAL (offset)))
>>        return true;
>> @@ -957,7 +941,7 @@
>>        return orig;
>>
>>        gcc_assert (reg);
>> -@@ -2196,13 +2421,257 @@ legitimize_pic_address (rtx orig, enum m
>> +@@ -2196,13 +2421,244 @@ legitimize_pic_address (rtx orig, enum m
>>                                     base == reg ? 0 : reg);
>>
>>        if (GET_CODE (orig) == CONST_INT)
>> @@ -1164,19 +1148,6 @@
>>  +  return orig;
>>  +}
>>  +
>> -+/* Return true if X is a TLS symbol.  */
>> -+
>> -+static bool
>> -+m68k_tls_symbol_p (rtx x)
>> -+{
>> -+  if (!TARGET_HAVE_TLS)
>> -+    return false;
>> -+
>> -+  if (GET_CODE (x) != SYMBOL_REF)
>> -+    return false;
>> -+
>> -+  return SYMBOL_REF_TLS_MODEL (x) != 0;
>> -+}
>>  +
>>  +/* Helper for m68k_tls_referenced_p.  */
>>  +
>> @@ -1414,6 +1385,18 @@
>>
>>  #define REG_OK_FOR_BASE_P(X) \
>>    m68k_legitimate_base_reg_p (X, REG_STRICT_P)
>> +@@ -777,7 +778,10 @@ __transfer_from_trampoline ()                                     \
>> + #define COPY_ONCE(Y) if (!copied) { Y = copy_rtx (Y); copied = ch = 1; }
>> + #define LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS(X,OLDX,MODE,WIN)   \
>> + { register int ch = (X) != (OLDX);                                    \
>> +-  if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS)                                           \
>> ++  if (HAVE_AS_TLS && (GET_CODE (X) == SYMBOL_REF) &&                  \
>> ++      (SYMBOL_REF_TLS_MODEL (X) != 0))                                        \
>> ++    m68k_legitimize_tls_address (X);                                  \
>> ++  else if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS)                                      \
>> +     { int copied = 0;                                                 \
>> +       if (GET_CODE (XEXP (X, 0)) == MULT)                             \
>> +       { COPY_ONCE (X); XEXP (X, 0) = force_operand (XEXP (X, 0), 0);} \
>>  @@ -974,6 +975,9 @@ do { if (cc_prev_status.flags & CC_IN_68
>>    assemble_name ((FILE), (NAME)),             \
>>    fprintf ((FILE), ",%u\n", (int)(ROUNDED)))
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html