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

[Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Stephen R Marenka wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 01:43:14AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > 
> > The patches posted to the binutils mailing list are incomplete. The 
> > binutils patch at
> > http://people.debian.org/~smarenka/m68k/tls/
> > is broken according to Kolla:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2009/07/msg00001.html
> > 
> > But in that post (June 28) Maxim recommends using mainline binutils, and 
> > since then we have HJL binutils-2.19.51.0.14 released, "...based on 
> > binutils 2009 0722 in CVS on sourceware.org..." So I guess I should start 
> > there.
> > 
> > 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
> > Presumably not this one?
> > http://people.debian.org/~smarenka/m68k/tls/gcc_patch2
> > (and gcc_patch1 is clearly broken... perhaps it was actually the same 
> > thing before being mangled... Stephen, I don't think this "/tls" directory 
> > is helping any.)
> 
> Shall I remove it then?

I'd remove it.

The gcc commit in question is this one,
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=147654
which appears to be the very one in the mailing list archive at the URL 
above (you can download a raw version at that URL).

A quick visual shows that tls/gcc_patch2 doesn't match the commit (the 
revision numbers in the diff confirm that it is older).

Finn