Development tools version

Development tools version

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi everybody.

I searched the web for some information about this, but haven't been
able to find any answer to my question.

I'd appreciate if someone could give me an advice about which version of
the different development tools (namely binutils & gcc), and which
version of the C library (either glibc or newlib) I should use for a
MPC860T processor.

I currently use the Hard Hat Journeyman Edition (and recompiled
everything from the rpm sources), but was wondering if it would be
better to stick with it or use a newer version of some tools.

I suppose that GCC 3.x is not ready for the MPC8xx yet (but I might be
wrong).

Thanks in advance for your help.

Laurent Pinchart.


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Development tools version

[Alex Zeffertt]

Laurent,

We're also use the MPC860.  For the tools we use CDK 2.0 from Montavista, and we've had no problems
with this.  To install CDK 2.0 for the 860 do this:

 > cd /mnt/cdrom/bin
 > ./hhl-host-install
  ... and then select "embeddedplanet-rpxlite" for the board


This provides you with:

i) libraries
ii) a root filesystem for NFS mounting your target
iii) standard tools ppc_8xx-gcc, ppc_8xx-ld, etc.

After this installation all you need to do to compile a linuxppc kernel is change CROSS_COMPILE to
ppc_8xx- in the top level Makefile.

Alex

Laurent Pinchart wrote:

>
> Hi everybody.
>
> I searched the web for some information about this, but haven't been
> able to find any answer to my question.
>
> I'd appreciate if someone could give me an advice about which version of
> the different development tools (namely binutils & gcc), and which
> version of the C library (either glibc or newlib) I should use for a
> MPC860T processor.
>
> I currently use the Hard Hat Journeyman Edition (and recompiled
> everything from the rpm sources), but was wondering if it would be
> better to stick with it or use a newer version of some tools.
>
> I suppose that GCC 3.x is not ready for the MPC8xx yet (but I might be
> wrong).
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Laurent Pinchart.
>
>
>


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Development tools version

[Neil Horman]

Yes, binutils 2.11.2.  Sorry about my fat fingers... :)
	Say....Speaking of those memory faults.  I never got around to researching
them.  Can you or anyone else provide general notes on exactly what those
patches fix?  I'd certainly appreciate it, as I always wanted to track those
down, but never quite found the time.  Thanks!


Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >I think that the Hard Hat tools will probably be the easiest for you to get up
> >and running with.  They have probably been the most throughly debugged for the
> >8xx.   Although if your looking to put together your own tools for the 860
> >series, we here have built the following, with a reasonably good deal of
> >success.  See the notes for details:
> >
> >Binutils:
> >       2.1.2 - no problems at all.  Download and build them for powerpc-linux and away
> >you go
> >
> >GCC:
> >       2.95.3 - again no real problems.
> >
> >GLIBC:
> >       2.2.4 - relatively easy.  Some issues with memory faults on occasion, which I
> >have not yet traked down.
> >
> >GDB:
> >       5.1.1 - no problems
> >
> >General notes:
> >       I've personally been following the embedded cross-gcc mini howto available on
> >penguinppc.com and I've been more or less happy with the results.  hope that
> >helps!
> >
> Thanks Neil.
>
> I've been able to succesfully use the Hard Hat binaries (actually that's
> so simple that I wouldn't have dared asking questions in this mailing
> list if I hadn't :-), but I'd like to recompile from the sources, in
> order not to depend on a binary release, and also to be able to modify
> the tools if needed.
>
> I tried to compile the tools from the sources without patching them a
> few months ago, and experienced memory faults and a lot of other
> problems with dynamically linked executables (is that a known issue ?).
>
> Recompiling from the SRPMS shouldn't be a hard job, so that's what I'll
> try. All the patches are supposed to be included in there...
>
> Just to make sure, did you mean binutils 2.11.2 ?
>
> Laurent Pinchart

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Development tools version

[Magnus Damm]

FYI,

strip in binutils-2.11.2 has problems...
Not very important maybe, but annoying.

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-binutils/2001-q3/msg00108.html

/ magnus


Neil Horman wrote:
>
> Yes, binutils 2.11.2.  Sorry about my fat fingers... :)
>         Say....Speaking of those memory faults.  I never got around to researching
> them.  Can you or anyone else provide general notes on exactly what those
> patches fix?  I'd certainly appreciate it, as I always wanted to track those
> down, but never quite found the time.  Thanks!
>
> Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >I think that the Hard Hat tools will probably be the easiest for you to get up
> > >and running with.  They have probably been the most throughly debugged for the
> > >8xx.   Although if your looking to put together your own tools for the 860
> > >series, we here have built the following, with a reasonably good deal of
> > >success.  See the notes for details:
> > >
> > >Binutils:
> > >       2.1.2 - no problems at all.  Download and build them for powerpc-linux and away
> > >you go
> > >
> > >GCC:
> > >       2.95.3 - again no real problems.
> > >
> > >GLIBC:
> > >       2.2.4 - relatively easy.  Some issues with memory faults on occasion, which I
> > >have not yet traked down.
> > >
> > >GDB:
> > >       5.1.1 - no problems
> > >
> > >General notes:
> > >       I've personally been following the embedded cross-gcc mini howto available on
> > >penguinppc.com and I've been more or less happy with the results.  hope that
> > >helps!
> > >
> > Thanks Neil.
> >
> > I've been able to succesfully use the Hard Hat binaries (actually that's
> > so simple that I wouldn't have dared asking questions in this mailing
> > list if I hadn't :-), but I'd like to recompile from the sources, in
> > order not to depend on a binary release, and also to be able to modify
> > the tools if needed.
> >
> > I tried to compile the tools from the sources without patching them a
> > few months ago, and experienced memory faults and a lot of other
> > problems with dynamically linked executables (is that a known issue ?).
> >
> > Recompiling from the SRPMS shouldn't be a hard job, so that's what I'll
> > try. All the patches are supposed to be included in there...
> >
> > Just to make sure, did you mean binutils 2.11.2 ?
> >
> > Laurent Pinchart
>

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Development tools version

[Neil Horman]

Really!  Is there a patch available or are the problems persistent?  I ask
because we have had interesting behavior differences on occasion between
stripped and unstripped versions of some software we are working on.  Thanks!
Neil :)


Magnus Damm wrote:
>
> FYI,
>
> strip in binutils-2.11.2 has problems...
> Not very important maybe, but annoying.
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-binutils/2001-q3/msg00108.html
>
> / magnus
>
> Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > Yes, binutils 2.11.2.  Sorry about my fat fingers... :)
> >         Say....Speaking of those memory faults.  I never got around to researching
> > them.  Can you or anyone else provide general notes on exactly what those
> > patches fix?  I'd certainly appreciate it, as I always wanted to track those
> > down, but never quite found the time.  Thanks!
> >
> > Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >I think that the Hard Hat tools will probably be the easiest for you to get up
> > > >and running with.  They have probably been the most throughly debugged for the
> > > >8xx.   Although if your looking to put together your own tools for the 860
> > > >series, we here have built the following, with a reasonably good deal of
> > > >success.  See the notes for details:
> > > >
> > > >Binutils:
> > > >       2.1.2 - no problems at all.  Download and build them for powerpc-linux and away
> > > >you go
> > > >
> > > >GCC:
> > > >       2.95.3 - again no real problems.
> > > >
> > > >GLIBC:
> > > >       2.2.4 - relatively easy.  Some issues with memory faults on occasion, which I
> > > >have not yet traked down.
> > > >
> > > >GDB:
> > > >       5.1.1 - no problems
> > > >
> > > >General notes:
> > > >       I've personally been following the embedded cross-gcc mini howto available on
> > > >penguinppc.com and I've been more or less happy with the results.  hope that
> > > >helps!
> > > >
> > > Thanks Neil.
> > >
> > > I've been able to succesfully use the Hard Hat binaries (actually that's
> > > so simple that I wouldn't have dared asking questions in this mailing
> > > list if I hadn't :-), but I'd like to recompile from the sources, in
> > > order not to depend on a binary release, and also to be able to modify
> > > the tools if needed.
> > >
> > > I tried to compile the tools from the sources without patching them a
> > > few months ago, and experienced memory faults and a lot of other
> > > problems with dynamically linked executables (is that a known issue ?).
> > >
> > > Recompiling from the SRPMS shouldn't be a hard job, so that's what I'll
> > > try. All the patches are supposed to be included in there...
> > >
> > > Just to make sure, did you mean binutils 2.11.2 ?
> > >
> > > Laurent Pinchart
> >
>

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/