Fine, just closed the Debian bug report and sent a patch to savannah
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 08:26:02PM -0700, Shannon C. Dealy wrote: > > Looking over the logs of the IRC discussion, I have to disagree with the > conclusion regarding the bcc-cc1 issue with building the rombios. A quick > review of the docs for bcc give no indication that the cc1 pass of the > compiler either "is" or "is not" intended to to be called directly, though > the documentation does make it clear that it is not necessary to call it > directly. To me, this makes it at least debateable as to whether > or not this is an FHS violation. Frankly there is no reason that bcc-cc1 > could not at any time be rolled into the bcc binary, in which case direct > calls to it will break, and while it is a common practice for compilers > to break out their passes as separate executables, this does not > necessarily mean that anything other than the frontend is intended to be > called directly by a user. Looking at the doc file for compiling the > BIOS (docs/xml/PUG/ch_BIOS.xml), it says: > > "Only needed the bcc-cc1 phase of the compiler" > > but gives no other reason for not calling bcc instead of bcc-cc1. > Anyway, using the line: > > bcc -o rombios.s -C-c -D__i86__ -0 -S _rombios_.c > > instead of the current: > > bcc-cc1 -o rombios.s -c -D__i86__ -0 _rombios_.c > > fixes the problem and generates an identical binary image. > > One added note, the Makefile assumes that the current directory is on the > path in it's reference to the "dataseghack" script, which is not a valid > assumption. > > Shannon C. Dealy | DeaTech Research Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - Custom Software Development - > | Embedded Systems, Real-time, Device Drivers > Phone: (800) 467-5820 | Networking, Scientific & Engineering Applications > or: (541) 451-5177 | www.deatech.com > > > -- Robert Millan
