On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 10:34 -0700, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 06:24:06PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > On Friday 03 August 2007, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > > Then it seems very curious that the constant folding should fail on this
> > > platform.
This is probably a question that should be directed to the binutils
list.
We need to set the default link start address used by ld. Unfortunately
ld doesn't have a nice porting guide like GCC does. :-)
Actually, we need to choose one of two possible start addresses based on
command line options t
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 12:46 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 05:24:28PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > I'm a bit surprised too. But it occurs to me that the ARM, unlike the
> > i386
> > and m68k, is bi-endian. Perhaps you can't actually know which mode it's
> > running in
Ian:
Thanks for the explanation of eh-frame-header. All of what you say makes
sense. Before I dig in to this, is the eh-frame-header stuff documented
somewhere? If so I should read that as well.
shap
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 17:24 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > I am not surprised that there is different behavior for different
> > targets, but I am very surprised that *this* behavior is different. This
> > optimization ought to be happening in the mid-end, and it ought to be
> > entirely machine inde
This is observed on gcc-3.4.6. It may be a known issue, and/or it may be
fixed in later compilers.
For bringup purposes, I wrote an inline assembly hack to get the cross
compiler to tell me whether the target is little/big endian. The code
fragment is:
const unsigned long ul = 0x04030201llu;
First, thanks to Dave and Daniel for taking the time to reply.
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 11:06 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> crtbeginT.o is used for -static; crtbegin.o is used without -static.
> I don't recall why they have to be different.
So far as we can tell from looking at the linux versio
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:58 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 03 August 2007 15:48, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>
> > 2. Is there a simple way to configure the compiler so that the default
> > compilation model (in the absence of command-line directives) is
> > --static? If n
We're targeting a new OS with GCC. I've done some of these before, but
I've run into one issue I don't recognize, and a second that I have
obviously messed up. I have looked at "Using and Porting" and "GCC
Internals". The answers may be there, but I did not find them --
pointers welcome.
1. Versi
