Quantcast

cegcc with binutils 2.21.1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

cegcc with binutils 2.21.1

Max Kellermann
Hi,

I have spent some time on rebasing the cegcc-binutils branch on
upstream version 2.21.1.  That was a big knot which became smaller and
smaller each time I rebased incrementally on a new release.
Fortunately, many of the cegcc patches were merged upstream, and
disappeared from my rebasing branch.

I rebased on the git import hosted at http://repo.or.cz/w/binutils.git

This is the result:

 http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/max/cegcc-binutils.git/log/?h=2.21.1-experimental

It's still very unclean, the commit messages describe changes that
have disappeared, and more (documented) patches need to be separated
out and submitted to upstream.  I don't understand those, because I've
never read the binutils code before, and I've never written a linker
script.  Does anybody want to comment, and help cleaning them up?

One change that I havn't pushed over is the patch that relocates
".bss" to ".data".  This bloats the generated binaries for no visible
advantage.  Who knows why this was added?  (It's a post-0.59 change)

I'm not uploading binaries this time, because there was little
interest in my other announcements previously.  I just want to make
sure that nobody else wastes time by replicating my effort.  I might
upload new binaries when my gcc 4.6 port is finished.

Max

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cegcc with binutils 2.21.1

Paul Sokolovsky
Hello,

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:34:05 +0100
Max Kellermann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have spent some time on rebasing the cegcc-binutils branch on
> upstream version 2.21.1.  That was a big knot which became smaller and
> smaller each time I rebased incrementally on a new release.
> Fortunately, many of the cegcc patches were merged upstream, and
> disappeared from my rebasing branch.

Were they? I remember reading some mail from Pedro Alves that GNU folks
considered removing support for arm-wince-pe targets from gcc and/or
binutils, so the above is for sure the great news!

>
> I rebased on the git import hosted at http://repo.or.cz/w/binutils.git
>
> This is the result:
>
>  http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/max/cegcc-binutils.git/log/?h=2.21.1-experimental
>
> It's still very unclean, the commit messages describe changes that
> have disappeared, and more (documented) patches need to be separated
> out and submitted to upstream.  I don't understand those, because I've
> never read the binutils code before, and I've never written a linker
> script.  Does anybody want to comment, and help cleaning them up?
>
> One change that I havn't pushed over is the patch that relocates
> ".bss" to ".data".  This bloats the generated binaries for no visible
> advantage.  Who knows why this was added?  (It's a post-0.59 change)

The direction of thought might be "DLLs"?

> I'm not uploading binaries this time, because there was little
> interest in my other announcements previously.  

Well, we're for sure listening, but it's likely that you're the only
active developer so far. (I believe I wrote that usecase I had in mind
for cegcc - to compile lot of open-source wince software and create a
"distro" - didn't work, as cegcc lacks lot of features still, so
after spending couple of weeks patching w32api for each new app I
finally gave up once understood that OLE stuff couldn't realistically be
made work anyway).

But thanks for keep working on this - I guess you have stable and
worthy usecase (maintaining one software across lot of platforms), and
I personally get questions about cegcc in email from time to time, so
people keep using it.

> I just want to make
> sure that nobody else wastes time by replicating my effort.  I might
> upload new binaries when my gcc 4.6 port is finished.
>
> Max


--
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:[hidden email]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cegcc with binutils 2.21.1

Vincent Torri-2
In reply to this post by Max Kellermann


On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Max Kellermann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I have spent some time on rebasing the cegcc-binutils branch on
upstream version 2.21.1.  That was a big knot which became smaller and
smaller each time I rebased incrementally on a new release.
Fortunately, many of the cegcc patches were merged upstream, and
disappeared from my rebasing branch.

I rebased on the git import hosted at http://repo.or.cz/w/binutils.git

This is the result:

 http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/max/cegcc-binutils.git/log/?h=2.21.1-experimental

It's still very unclean, the commit messages describe changes that
have disappeared, and more (documented) patches need to be separated
out and submitted to upstream.  I don't understand those, because I've
never read the binutils code before, and I've never written a linker
script.  Does anybody want to comment, and help cleaning them up?

One change that I havn't pushed over is the patch that relocates
".bss" to ".data".  This bloats the generated binaries for no visible
advantage.  Who knows why this was added?  (It's a post-0.59 change)

I'm not uploading binaries this time, because there was little
interest in my other announcements previously.  I just want to make
sure that nobody else wastes time by replicating my effort.  I might
upload new binaries when my gcc 4.6 port is finished.

I'm still wondering if the project can't be integrated into mingw-w64. Any opinion about that ?

Vincent Torri

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Loading...