From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:56:18 -0700 Received: from u-108.karlsruhe.ipdial.viaginterkom.de ([62.180.18.108]:31241 "EHLO u-108.karlsruhe.ipdial.viaginterkom.de") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:56:02 -0700 Received: (ralf@lappi) by lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 05:55:50 +0200 Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 05:55:50 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Jun Sun Cc: linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... Message-ID: <20001014055550.B3816@bacchus.dhis.org> References: <39E7EB73.9206D0DB@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <39E7EB73.9206D0DB@mvista.com>; from jsun@mvista.com on Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:13:23PM -0700 X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips-outgoing On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:13:23PM -0700, Jun Sun wrote: > Sorry to bring this topic again, but I cannot seem to sort out all the > pieces of info together to get a consistent picture. Below is what I > gathered through the recent emails on the lists. Please take a look and > correct any mistakes. Particularly I like to know which version is > considered STABLE today. Perhaps there is also issue what version works > with what. > > Also, let me know if I miss something. > > In the end I like to put it on a web page and track the future toolchain > developments - for lazy hackers. :-) > > Jun > > 1. binutils > ----------- > > a) latest binutil cvs tree (v2.10) + debian patch > > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/binutils/ > ftp://ftp.rfc822.org/pub/local/debian-mips/patches/rel32-binutils.diff > > b) Andreas Jaeger recommanded Ulf's patch against the CVS tree. He > recommanded > > ftp://oss.sgi.com/pub/linux/mips/src/binutils/binutils-000420.diff.gz. > > But I only found the following file. > > ftp://oss.sgi.com/pub/linux/mips/binutils/binutils-000424.diff.gz The binutils paragraph is old new. All of the required patches are now in binutils except one which I sent to Ulf yesterday. > c) What about those patches at the same ftp sites (v2.8.x)? > > ftp://oss.sgi.com/pub/linux/mips/binutils/ Still recommended because we can't yet be sure that binutils-cvs are kosher yet. For example it's suspect that I can't build Emacs. Might be something else but in case of doubt binutils are the suspect ... > 2. gcc > ------- > > a) the cvs tree on oss.sgi.com (v2.7.2?) Any patch needed for TODAY's > tree? Ralf seems to suggest his patch posted on 09/08 is still needed > (constructor, Keith gcse, etc). > > b) Ralf's patch against egcs 1.1.2 > > ftp://oss.sgi.com/pub/linux/mips/src/egcs/egcs-1.1.2.diff.gz Only intended for mips64 kernels.. Almost guaranteed to be unusable for anything else. > c) Ralf's patch against egcs 1.0.3a. (Where is the base tar ball?) On your favorite GNU site. > ftp://oss.sgi.com/pub/linux/mips/egcs/egcs-1.0.3a-2.diff.gz > > d) Andreas said the current development version 2.96 worked - with the > later binutils and gcc. Plus above mentioned constructor patch. Seems to work reasonably well. > 3.glibc > ------- > > a) the cvs tree on oss.sgi.com (v2.0.6). Any patch needed? No. However I'm not always doing the best job at keeping it uptodate. > Florian pointed out the following patch. I am not 100% sure if it is > aginst the current sgi CVS tree. Any confirmation? > > ftp://ftp.rfc822.org/pub/local/debian-mips/patches/rel32-glibc.diff Against the glibc cvs tree at Cygnus. > b) Andreas is trying to get glibc 2.2 working. Definitely bleeding edge > stuff. > > http://www.suse.de/%7Eaj/glibc-mips.html > > c) Maciej reported he got binutils v2.10 working for glibc 2.2. No > details or any distribution. > > d) glibc v2.0.7 from linux-vr project by Jay > > ftp://ftp.place.org/pub/nop/linuxce/ > ftp://ftp.place.org/pub/nop/linuxce/rpms/glibc-2.0.7-20.src.rpm 2.0.7 has resulted in so many bug reports that I consider to plain dump any related reports in the future. Ralf