Re: How is the definition of stack canary on MIPS arch?
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 09:12:57AM -0700, David Daney wrote: > On 08/30/2010 08:36 PM, Adam Jiang wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:43:44AM -0700, David Daney wrote: > >>On 08/30/2010 09:46 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > >>>On 08/30/2010 03:45 AM, Adam Jiang wrote: > When I read the source in Linux kerne, it was said that stack canary for > implementing stack protector is defined as an offset to %gs on x86 > architecture. How about stack canary defined on MIPS? > >>> > >>>It's not implemented for MIPS. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>For the Linux kernel, the MIPS stack canary would be a constant > >>offset (that depends on PAGE_SIZE) from register $28. > >> > >>David Daney > > > >Thanks, David and Richard. > > > >Is there code, doc or anything on this topic I can refer to? Is it > >defined in gcc internally or in kernel source itself? Would you please > >redirect me to the right place? > > > > I am unaware of any documents. The MIPS Linux kernel ABI is not > really documented anywhere, one learns it by studying and hacking on > the source code. > > 32-bit kernels use a variant of the o32 ABI, 64-bit kernels use a > variant of n64. Both dedicate register $28 as a pointer to the > thread area of which the stack is a part. > > The form any stack canary for the MIPS Linux kernel will be > determined by whomever implements it. > > >I have done some research by googling. Here are what I've gotten. > > > >http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp/main.html > >http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp/ > >http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v2.6.35/arch/x86/include/asm/stackprotector.h > > > >However, it seems there is no documents about how this is done on MIPS. > >Do I miss something? > > > > At RTH said, "It's not implemented for MIPS.", so there was really > nothing to miss. I found this. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-04/msg02164.html However, my toolchain which I downloaded from CodeSourcery complained -fstack-protector was not supported when I tried this out. So, my question is what's the meaning by "It's not implemented for MIPS". Linaro added stack protector in Linux kernel about two month ago. This patch has been pulled into a new release. Does this mean there is only one step left on Linux Kernel side to get support SSP on MIPS? /Adam > > David Daney
Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?
On 09/05/2010 08:17 PM, Dennis wrote:
Hi, all,
I'm using gentoo distribution (including gmp/mpfr/mpc) that could compile
gcc-4.5.0, 4.5.1, and many snapshots correctly, including the recent one
gcc-4.5-20100902,
but when I tried to compile gcc-4.6, any snapshot version, even recent
gcc-4.6-20100904,
it always failed, the recent one failure compiling is:
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'grokdeclarator':
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:5533: warning: format not a string literal
and no format arguments
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'grokparms':
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:6194: warning: format not a string literal
and no format arguments
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025:64: error: macro
"ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type" passed 1 arguments, but takes just 0
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'finish_struct':
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025: error: 'ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type'
undeclared (first use in this function)
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025: error: (Each undeclared identifier is
reported only once
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025: error: for each function it appears
in.)
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7308:62: error: macro
"ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type" passed 1 arguments, but takes just 0
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'finish_enum':
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7308: error: 'ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type'
undeclared (first use in this function)
make: *** [c-decl.o] Error 1
I don't know what happened with that? When I search the
'ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type' macro,
it really doesn't exist in the gcc-4.6-20100904 source, nor under /usr/include,
so what is
that macro real dependency? the prerequisites page seems not help me,
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
Who have successfully build gcc-4.6 please help me, or have any clue, I have
searched that ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type
through google, but didn't find out any meaningful results,
please make sure have my email address on cc-list that I can receive your
email, because I didn't subscribe such
high volume mailing list,
Thank you very much,
--
Dennis, from Singapore
hm... an obvious question would be if you have your toolchain correct?
(but you probably do..(I used this to build
4.6.0..:http://cross-lfs.org/view/svn/x86_64-64/))
in your case I see something with lang... maybe your CFLAGS are set
wrong to the wrong machine?! over here my CFLAGS look like this:
CFLAGS="-m64 -mtune=core2 -march=core2 -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer
-fstack-protector -w" CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" MAKEOPTS="{-j3}"
keep in mind this is for a intel iMac... your system could be diff..
Justin P. Mattock
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? > > > > From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: > > > >• The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library > > builds. > >• The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the > > tests pass. > > See for instance: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html There are no libstdc++ results in that. Richard.
Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?
--- On Mon, 6/9/10, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> From: Justin P. Mattock
> Subject: Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?
> To: "Dennis"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, crq...@ymail.com
> Date: Monday, 6 September, 2010, 9:18 AM
> On 09/05/2010 08:17 PM, Dennis
[...]
> hm... an obvious question would be if you have your
> toolchain correct?
Yes, I think the binutils/gmp/mpfr/mpc all dependencies are correct, otherwise
why I can compile all gcc-4.5.x version correctly?
On the same system, gcc-4.5.x (4.5.0 and 4.5.1 and 4.5-20100902/... multiple
snapshots) all can compile correctly, I install them into separate directories,
and have verified those compilers can compile many source packages correctly;
> (but you probably do..(I used this to build
> 4.6.0..:http://cross-lfs.org/view/svn/x86_64-64/))
but this still didn't explain what's the "ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type" macro?
all through gcc source it's only used by gcc/c-decl.c file, but it has no
definition under gcc source header files, nor under /usr/include;
>
> in your case I see something with lang... maybe your CFLAGS
> are set
> wrong to the wrong machine?! over here my CFLAGS look like
> this:
> CFLAGS="-m64 -mtune=core2 -march=core2 -O2 -pipe
> -fomit-frame-pointer
> -fstack-protector -w" CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
> MAKEOPTS="{-j3}"
I didn't use any special CFLAGS, when I try to compile gcc-4.5.x or this
gcc-4.6 snapshot, I just use "../gcc-4.6-20100905/configure
--with-arch-64=athlon64 --with-arch-32=i386", I tried to get a multilib
compiler that could generate default athlon64 optimized code for 64bit and i386
code for 32bit;
The same "--with-arch-64=athlon64 --with-arch-32=i386" works well during
compiling gcc-4.5.x but why not work on gcc-4.6 ???
>
> keep in mind this is for a intel iMac... your system could
> be diff..
>
> Justin P. Mattock
>
Thanks a lot~
Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Cheng Rk wrote:
> --- On Mon, 6/9/10, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>> From: Justin P. Mattock
>> Subject: Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?
>> To: "Dennis"
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, crq...@ymail.com
>> Date: Monday, 6 September, 2010, 9:18 AM
>> On 09/05/2010 08:17 PM, Dennis
> [...]
>> hm... an obvious question would be if you have your
>> toolchain correct?
>
> Yes, I think the binutils/gmp/mpfr/mpc all dependencies are correct,
> otherwise why I can compile all gcc-4.5.x version correctly?
> On the same system, gcc-4.5.x (4.5.0 and 4.5.1 and 4.5-20100902/... multiple
> snapshots) all can compile correctly, I install them into separate
> directories, and have verified those compilers can compile many source
> packages correctly;
>
>> (but you probably do..(I used this to build
>> 4.6.0..:http://cross-lfs.org/view/svn/x86_64-64/))
>
> but this still didn't explain what's the "ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type" macro?
> all through gcc source it's only used by gcc/c-decl.c file, but it has no
> definition under gcc source header files, nor under /usr/include;
>
>>
>> in your case I see something with lang... maybe your CFLAGS
>> are set
>> wrong to the wrong machine?! over here my CFLAGS look like
>> this:
>> CFLAGS="-m64 -mtune=core2 -march=core2 -O2 -pipe
>> -fomit-frame-pointer
>> -fstack-protector -w" CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
>> MAKEOPTS="{-j3}"
>
> I didn't use any special CFLAGS, when I try to compile gcc-4.5.x or this
> gcc-4.6 snapshot, I just use "../gcc-4.6-20100905/configure
> --with-arch-64=athlon64 --with-arch-32=i386", I tried to get a multilib
> compiler that could generate default athlon64 optimized code for 64bit and
> i386 code for 32bit;
>
> The same "--with-arch-64=athlon64 --with-arch-32=i386" works well during
> compiling gcc-4.5.x but why not work on gcc-4.6 ???
>
>>
>> keep in mind this is for a intel iMac... your system could
>> be diff..
>>
>> Justin P. Mattock
>>
>
> Thanks a lot~
>
>
>
ah... if gcc 4.5.0 builds right, but 4.6.0 does not then everything is
good(toolchain).. sounds like your going to have to file a bug with
gcc since 4.6.0 is so new..
(keep in mind it's late here so I might have left a few things out..).
--
Justin P. Mattock
Re: structures & param_structures in gengtype
2010/9/6 Basile Starynkevitch : > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 06:36:48 +0300 > Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > >> 2010/9/2 Basile Starynkevitch : >> > Hello Laurynas, Diego & all the list. >> > >> > A precise question about gengtype (the current trunk one) >> > >> > I have the impression that every member of the 'param_structs' variable >> > in gengtype.c (viewed as a linked list of types linked thru their next >> > field) is also a member of the 'structures' variable in gengtype.c >> > >> > Could you confirm that impression? >> >> That's my recollection too. >> > > Thanks for the prompt reply. Do you have a more precise understanding of how > does that happen? I was not fully able to understand that. What routines are > adding to both lists? Based on the reading of the source (I cannot run gengtype here): first the structs are created and put to the 'structures' list. This should be done by find_structure or similar. Then, iff GTY param option is encountered, a new struct type variable is created with kind = TYPE_PARAM_STRUCT and stru = already existing struct and that is put to 'param_structs'. Look at find_param_struct and its callers. -- Laurynas
Re: Question about Doloop
Hi,
> Doloop optimization fails to be applied on the following inner loop
> when compiling for PowerPC (GCC -r162294) due to:
>
> Doloop: number of iterations too costly to compute.
strength reduction is performed in ivopts, introducing new variable:
for (p = inptr; p < something; p += 3)
...
So the number of iterations is (something - p) / 3, which doloop considers
too costly to compute.
Zdenek
> I do not understand why as the number of iterations is max_cols and I
> appreciate an explanation.
>
> Thanks,
> Revital
>
> 11 while (--max_rows >= 0)
> 12 {
> 13 inptr = *inbuf++;
> 14 outp = outbuf[0][rows];
> 15 rows++;
> 16
> 17 for (y = 0; y < max_cols; y++)
> 18 {
> 19 k = ((int) (inptr[0]));
> 20 inptr += 3;
> 21
> 22 outp[y] = (unsigned char) ((inarr[k]) >> 16);
> 23 }
> 24 }
>
>
> >From Doloop dump:
>
> Analyzing operand (reg/f:DI 246 [ D.2082 ]) of insn (insn 118 116 119 5
> test1.c:17 (set (reg:CC 272)
> (compare:CC (reg/v/f:DI 199 [ inptr ])
> (reg/f:DI 246 [ D.2082 ]))) 535 {*cmpdi_internal1}
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:DI 246 [ D.2082 ])
> (nil)))
> invariant (reg/f:DI 246 [ D.2082 ]) (in DI)
> Loop 2 is simple:
> simple exit 5 -> 6
> number of iterations: (mult:DI (plus:DI (minus:DI (reg/f:DI 246
> [ D.2082 ])
> (reg/v/f:DI 199 [ inptr ]))
> (const_int -3 [0xfffd]))
> (const_int -6148914691236517205 [0xaaab]))
> upper bound: -1
> Doloop: number of iterations too costly to compute.
>
>
> (See attached file: test1.c)
gcc
i want a a gcc
Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?
6.9.2010 6:17, Dennis kirjoitti: I'm using gentoo distribution (including gmp/mpfr/mpc) that could compile gcc-4.5.0, 4.5.1, and many snapshots correctly, including the recent one gcc-4.5-20100902, but when I tried to compile gcc-4.6, any snapshot version, even recent gcc-4.6-20100904, it always failed, the recent one failure compiling is: ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'grokdeclarator': ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:5533: warning: format not a string literal and no format arguments ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'grokparms': ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:6194: warning: format not a string literal and no format arguments ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025:64: error: macro "ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type" passed 1 arguments, but takes just 0 ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'finish_struct': ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025: error: 'ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type' undeclared (first use in this function) ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025: error: for each function it appears in.) ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7308:62: error: macro "ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type" passed 1 arguments, but takes just 0 ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'finish_enum': ../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7308: error: 'ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type' undeclared (first use in this function) make: *** [c-decl.o] Error 1 I don't know what happened with that? When I search the 'ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type' macro, it really doesn't exist in the gcc-4.6-20100904 source, nor under /usr/include, so what is that macro real dependency? > > Who have successfully build gcc-4.6 please help me, or have any clue, > I have searched that ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type > through google, but didn't find out any meaningful results, This seems to be defined in a header generated during the build into the $BUILD/gcc : [r...@localhost gcc]# grep ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type *.h gtype-desc.h:#define ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type_u() ((union lang_type_u *)(ggc_internal_cleared_alloc_stat (sizeof (union lang_type_u) MEM_STAT_INFO))) On CentOS 5.5/ia32 the build seemed to succeed for the 'x86_64-linux-gnu' target, using gcc-4.1.2 as the host and build compiler. Must check the Fedora 13/x86_64 host with its gcc-4.4.4 too but I wouldn't expect any change with it... So maybe the Gentoo distro has some problem...
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: > >> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? >> > >> > From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: >> > >> > • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library >> > builds. >> > • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the >> > tests pass. >> >> See for instance: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html > > There are no libstdc++ results in that. > > Richard. This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead?
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike wrote: > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: >> >>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>> > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? >>> > >>> > From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: >>> > >>> > • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library >>> > builds. >>> > • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the >>> > tests pass. >>> >>> See for instance: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html >> >> There are no libstdc++ results in that. >> >> Richard. > > This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? make -k check
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On 9/6/2010 9:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library builds. • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the tests pass. See for instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html There are no libstdc++ results in that. Richard. This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? make -k check make check-c++ runs both g++ and libstdc++-v3 testsuites. -- Tim Prince
permissions to resolve bugs
Apologies for the trivial question - I haven't worked on GCC for a while. I fixed PR libobjc/19850. I guess I'm supposed to resolve the bug now but I don't seem to have the permissions to do it in bugzilla (my email is nicola.p...@meta-innovation.com). Can that be enabled ? :-) Apologies it this is not the right place to ask. Thanks
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: >>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? > > From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: > > • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library > builds. > • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of > the > tests pass. See for instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html >>> >>> There are no libstdc++ results in that. >>> >>> Richard. >> >> This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? > > make -k check > Ugh. And I thought I was golden :) This apparently requires autogen to do something about fixincludes/check.tpl. I have no idea what that is or what that means I'll report back. Any insight you can provide is greatly appreciated.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On 09/06/2010 06:18 PM, NightStrike wrote: > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? >> >> From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: >> >>• The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library >> builds. >>• The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of >> the >> tests pass. > > See for instance: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html There are no libstdc++ results in that. Richard. >>> >>> This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? >> >> make -k check >> > > Ugh. And I thought I was golden :) > > This apparently requires autogen to do something about > fixincludes/check.tpl. I have no idea what that is or what that > means Just ignore the fixincludes test results. Andrew.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 09/06/2010 06:18 PM, NightStrike wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: > >> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>> Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? >>> >>> From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: >>> >>> • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library >>> builds. >>> • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of >>> the >>> tests pass. >> >> See for instance: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html > > There are no libstdc++ results in that. > > Richard. This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? >>> >>> make -k check >>> >> >> Ugh. And I thought I was golden :) >> >> This apparently requires autogen to do something about >> fixincludes/check.tpl. I have no idea what that is or what that >> means > > Just ignore the fixincludes test results. > > Andrew. > Thanks! Life just got easier again :) Running it with -j5. Hopefully cygwin doesn't barf on that.. I know cygwin used to have issues with -j.
Re: permissions to resolve bugs
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Nicola Pero wrote: > Apologies for the trivial question - I haven't worked on GCC for a while. > > I fixed PR libobjc/19850. I guess I'm supposed to resolve the bug now but I > don't seem to have > the permissions to do it in bugzilla (my email is > nicola.p...@meta-innovation.com). > > Can that be enabled ? :-) You should be able to use your @gcc.gnu.org account which has full permissions to close bugs. Just use the forgot password on your @gcc.gnu.org account. If that does not work, is the email that your @gcc account is being forward to correct. Use "ssh gcc.gnu.org email emailaddr...@emailmachine" to set it up correctly. Thanks, Andrew Pinski PS I noticed you forgot to send the patches to gcc-patc...@. Even patches which are committed and written by maintainers should be sent there.
Re: permissions to resolve bugs
> You should be able to use your @gcc.gnu.org account which has full > permissions to close bugs. Just use the forgot password on your > @gcc.gnu.org account. If that does not work, is the email that your > @gcc account is being forward to correct. Use "ssh gcc.gnu.org email > emailaddr...@emailmachine" to set it up correctly. Ah! That worked like a charm. Thanks a lot! :-) > PS I noticed you forgot to send the patches to gcc-patc...@. Even > patches which are committed and written by maintainers should be sent > there. Ok - will do - I didn't know that. It sounds like a good idea. :-) I'll post them right now. Thanks
gcc bugzilla upgrade
I was working on a gcc bugzilla project upgrade under Daniel Berlin's guidance but have not been able to contact him in a long while. Can anyone give me a current address for him or another dev's name who I can work with? Thanks. Regards, -Tom Thomas M. Browder, Jr. Niceville, Florida USA
GCC on FreeBSD/ia64: No rule to make target .../libgcc/crtfastmath.o
Anton reports that GCC fails to build on FreeBSD/ia64. Any ideas on what to try? I assume it's just a small change that caused this regression (this used to work some releases ago). gmake[4]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build/gcc' gmake[4]: *** No rule to make target `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build/ia64-portbld-freebsd9.0/libgcc/crtfastmath.o', needed by `T_TARGET'. Stop. gmake[4]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs gmake[4]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build/gcc' gmake[3]: *** [gcc-extra-parts] Error 2 gmake[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs gmake[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build/ia64-portbld-freebsd9.0/libgcc' gmake[2]: *** [all-stage1-target-libgcc] Error 2 gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build' gmake[1]: *** [stage1-bubble] Error 2 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build' gmake: *** [bootstrap-lean] Error 2 *** Error code 1 Interestingly, i386/* does not show any changes on the i386 side that look like adjustments along these lines. Is this something ia64-specific? Any pointers, suggestions? I'm sure Anton will be happy to test any patches that one of us may come up with. Gerald
Re: GCC on FreeBSD/ia64: No rule to make target .../libgcc/crtfastmath.o
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Anton reports that GCC fails to build on FreeBSD/ia64. Any ideas > on what to try? I assume it's just a small change that caused this > regression (this used to work some releases ago). > > gmake[4]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build/gcc' > gmake[4]: *** No rule to make target > `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build/ia64-portbld-freebsd9.0/libgcc/crtfastmath.o', > needed by `T_TARGET'. Stop. > gmake[4]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs > gmake[4]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build/gcc' > gmake[3]: *** [gcc-extra-parts] Error 2 > gmake[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs > gmake[3]: Leaving directory > `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build/ia64-portbld-freebsd9.0/libgcc' > gmake[2]: *** [all-stage1-target-libgcc] Error 2 > gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build' > gmake[1]: *** [stage1-bubble] Error 2 > gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc46/work/build' > gmake: *** [bootstrap-lean] Error 2 > *** Error code 1 > > Interestingly, i386/* does not show any changes on the i386 side that > look like adjustments along these lines. Is this something ia64-specific? > Any pointers, suggestions? > > I'm sure Anton will be happy to test any patches that one of us may come > up with. > > Gerald > You need to include config/ia64/t-ia64 in libgcc. -- H.J.
