Re: Create a new mirror
Hello Gerald, The mirror is setup. Here is a patch as I do not have write access to push it. RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/mirrors.html,v retrieving revision 1.246 diff -r1.246 mirrors.html 42a43,46 > The Netherlands, Dronten: > href="http://mirror.koddos.net/gcc/";>http://mirror.koddos.net/gcc/ | > href="rsync://mirror.koddos.net/gcc/">rsync://mirror.koddos.net/gcc/, > thanks to Martin (mirror at koddos.net) at KoDDoS. Regards, Martin Hi Martin, On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, KoDDoS Mirror wrote: We would like to create a new mirror for GCC in Dronten, Netherlands. Can you let us know how to process? you can just ahead, and let us know (ideally with a patch against http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html ); that's all then. :-) Cheers, Gerald
Strange error message about condition code in assembly (ia32)
Hello,
On GCC: gcc (Ubuntu 7.2.0-8ubuntu3) 7.2.0, Binutils: GNU ld (GNU Binutils for
Ubuntu) 2.29.1,I get such error messages:
boot.c: In function ‘dummy_do_not_call’:
boot.c:1656:3: error: invalid 'asm': operand is not a condition code, invalid
operand code 'c'
asm volatile (" bootbefore_part2_PhysicaldriveNb = %c0 " : : "p"
(&bootbefore.part2.PhysicaldriveNb));
^~~
The source is simply something like:__attribute__((weak)) void
dummy_do_not_call (void)
{
asm volatile (" bootbefore_part2_PhysicaldriveNb = %c0 " : : "p"
(&bootbefore.part2.PhysicaldriveNb));
... same pattern ...}
and that "strange" asm is used to be able to access fields of structures in
assembler.
The %c0 modifier is clearly defined
in:https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#x86-Operand-Modifiersto
print the constant expression with no punctuation, we should just get in the
assembler file:bootbefore_part2_PhysicaldriveNb = bootbefore+42
Is there something wrong with GCC compiled for the latest Ubuntu?Where that
"condition code" message is coming from?
Thanks for any answer,Etienne.
CFLAGS for the host in canadian cross build
Hello, I'm trying to build a canadian cross compiler with build == x86_64-linux, host == xtensa-linux and target == xtensa-linux. I need to specify an xtensa-specific flag in CFLAGS that will be applied to the host binary. I put this flag into CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS. The first question: is that the right place for it? The build process tries to build libcpp for the build system and it runs x86_64 gcc with that xtensa-specific option. That's where the build breaks for me, because the option is not recognized by the build gcc. Is it supposed to work? If CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS is the right place for the option, how can the build tell whether it's intended for the build or for the host? -- Thanks. -- Max
Re: CFLAGS for the host in canadian cross build
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:30:14 -0800 Max Filippov wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying to build a canadian cross compiler with build == > x86_64-linux, host == xtensa-linux and target == xtensa-linux. I need > to specify an xtensa-specific flag in CFLAGS that will be applied to > the host binary. > > I put this flag into CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS. The first question: is that > the right place for it? > > The build process tries to build libcpp for the build system and it > runs x86_64 gcc with that xtensa-specific option. That's where the > build breaks for me, because the option is not recognized by the > build gcc. Is it supposed to work? > > If CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS is the right place for the option, how can the > build tell whether it's intended for the build or for the host? GCC has $CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD and $CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET.
Re: CFLAGS for the host in canadian cross build
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Matias Fonzo wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:30:14 -0800 > Max Filippov wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I'm trying to build a canadian cross compiler with build == >> x86_64-linux, host == xtensa-linux and target == xtensa-linux. I need >> to specify an xtensa-specific flag in CFLAGS that will be applied to >> the host binary. >> >> I put this flag into CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS. The first question: is that >> the right place for it? >> >> The build process tries to build libcpp for the build system and it >> runs x86_64 gcc with that xtensa-specific option. That's where the >> build breaks for me, because the option is not recognized by the >> build gcc. Is it supposed to work? >> >> If CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS is the right place for the option, how can the >> build tell whether it's intended for the build or for the host? > > GCC has $CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD and $CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET. Right, but as far as I can see CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET are not applied when a binary for the host is built. And CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD are applied when a binary for the build system is built. I don't see what I'd call CFLAGS_FOR_HOST. -- Thanks. -- Max
Re: CFLAGS for the host in canadian cross build
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:51:34 -0800 Max Filippov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Matias Fonzo > wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:30:14 -0800 > > Max Filippov wrote: > [..] > >> > >> If CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS is the right place for the option, how can the > >> build tell whether it's intended for the build or for the host? > > > > GCC has $CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD and $CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET. > > Right, but as far as I can see CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET are not applied > when a binary for the host is built. And CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD are applied > when a binary for the build system is built. I don't see what I'd call > CFLAGS_FOR_HOST. > I am trying to find more information about HOST_CFLAGS ...
GCC CI on Power
Hi, My name is Nathália Harumi, I'm a student of The University of Campinas. I'm working on validation projects on OpenPower lab (which is a partnership between IBM and The University of Campinas, in Brazil) and we'd like to find a way to contribute the GCC community. Now a days, we use a Buildbot platform for internal validation projects on Power with several ppc architectures and flavours as workers. We're also working with glibc community to improve it buildbot and to provide workers for builds on ppc. So, we'd like to know which platform you use for CI and how we can contribute with it. Thank you, Nathália.
[PATCH] RISC-V: Add Jim Wilson as a maintainer
Jim has recently started working at SiFive, where he'll be contributing to our GCC port. Andrew, Kito and I would like him to be a mainatiner. My understand is that this is the right place to ask. I've also changed my address to my SiFive one, where I also work -- it seems cleaner to have everyone use our proper email address. ChangeLog 2017-11-06 Palmer Dabbelt * MAINTAINERS (RISC-V): Add Jim Wilson as a maintainer. Use my SiFive email address. --- MAINTAINERS | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 9c3a56ea0941..26e8697079d4 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -93,8 +93,9 @@ pdp11 portPaul Koning picochip port Daniel Towner powerpcspe portAndrew Jenner riscv port Kito Cheng -riscv port Palmer Dabbelt +riscv port Palmer Dabbelt riscv port Andrew Waterman +riscv port Jim Wilson rl78 port DJ Delorie rs6000/powerpc portDavid Edelsohn rs6000/powerpc portSegher Boessenkool -- 2.13.6
Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add Jim Wilson as a maintainer
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 06:39:20PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > Jim has recently started working at SiFive, where he'll be contributing > to our GCC port. Andrew, Kito and I would like him to be a mainatiner. > My understand is that this is the right place to ask. It is the steering committee that appoints maintainers and so somebody needs to suggest this to the steering committee, which Jim Wilson is a member of. Jim is a global reviewer, so even without being riscv port maintainer he can review riscv patches other people wrote, just not his own. So, I think for the time being you should just update your mail in MAINTAINERS and let the SC decide on further maintainers. Jakub
