* binutils newer than 2.9.1 @ 1999-07-01 0:00 Brendan Simon 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Mumit Khan 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Brendan Simon @ 1999-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: binutils Where can I find binutils releases that are newer version 2.9.1 ? I read in one of Mumit Khan's cross-compiler howtos that 2.9.4 is recommended for building the cygwin32/mingw32 compilers. There is a reference to where to obtain these but I would like to latest tested release when building all the cross-compilers I am interested in (mainly powerpc and m68k). I'd prefer not to use CVS as this might be too bleeding-edge for my purposes. The official binutils site (sourceware.cygnus.com as far as I am aware) has 2.9.1as the latest release. This has been around for quite awhile and I'm sure there must have been further releases. Has the site been kept up to date ? The main sourceware.cygnus.com web page needs a link to the binutils page in the left frame. There is a little message in the main frame saying that binutils is now hosted at soureware but howlong will that message be there for ? Brendan Simon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: binutils newer than 2.9.1 1999-07-01 0:00 binutils newer than 2.9.1 Brendan Simon @ 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Brendan Simon 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Mumit Khan 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 1999-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: brendan; +Cc: binutils Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 06:04:18 +0000 From: Brendan Simon <brendan@dgs.monash.edu.au> Where can I find binutils releases that are newer version 2.9.1 ? There are no official binutils releases newer than 2.9.1. The CVS binutils sources happen to report themselves as 2.9.4 currently, but that is strictly an internal number. There is no single 2.9.4 release. I read in one of Mumit Khan's cross-compiler howtos that 2.9.4 is recommended for building the cygwin32/mingw32 compilers. The cygwin releases include binutils snapshots which have been tested for cygwin. Probably the latest cygwin release included a binutils snapshot marked 2.9.4 (it's been 2.9.4 for a while). But, again, there is no single 2.9.4 release. The official binutils site (sourceware.cygnus.com as far as I am aware) has 2.9.1as the latest release. This has been around for quite awhile and I'm sure there must have been further releases. Has the site been kept up to date ? The site is more or less up to date. I'm afraid we are very far behind in actually making an official release. I still have a stack of patches and bug reports I need to get through, although I have been making a little progress recently. Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: binutils newer than 2.9.1 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Brendan Simon 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Brendan Simon @ 1999-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Lance Taylor; +Cc: binutils Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 06:04:18 +0000 > From: Brendan Simon <brendan@dgs.monash.edu.au> > > Where can I find binutils releases that are newer version 2.9.1 ? > > There are no official binutils releases newer than 2.9.1. The CVS > binutils sources happen to report themselves as 2.9.4 currently, but > that is strictly an internal number. There is no single 2.9.4 > release. > > I read in one of Mumit Khan's cross-compiler howtos that 2.9.4 is > recommended for building the cygwin32/mingw32 compilers. > > The cygwin releases include binutils snapshots which have been tested > for cygwin. Probably the latest cygwin release included a binutils > snapshot marked 2.9.4 (it's been 2.9.4 for a while). But, again, > there is no single 2.9.4 release. > > The official binutils site (sourceware.cygnus.com as far as I am aware) > has 2.9.1as the latest release. This has been around for quite awhile > and I'm sure there must have been further releases. Has the site been > kept up to date ? > > The site is more or less up to date. > > I'm afraid we are very far behind in actually making an official > release. I still have a stack of patches and bug reports I need to > get through, although I have been making a little progress recently. > > Ian If I want later versions of binutils (I am unsure of how necessary this is) then it would appear that CVS would be the best option and to checkout snapshots that are known to be reasonably reliable. Would you suggest this as a wise thing or to just stick with the stock standard 2.9.1 ? Maybe the cygwin sources of binutils might be the best option ? My main targets of interest are powerpc-eabi, powerpc-linux and m68k-??? Brendan Simon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: binutils newer than 2.9.1 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Brendan Simon @ 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Charles Gauthier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 1999-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: brendan; +Cc: binutils Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:22:14 +0000 From: Brendan Simon <brendan@dgs.monash.edu.au> If I want later versions of binutils (I am unsure of how necessary this is) then it would appear that CVS would be the best option and to checkout snapshots that are known to be reasonably reliable. Would you suggest this as a wise thing or to just stick with the stock standard 2.9.1 ? Maybe the cygwin sources of binutils might be the best option ? My main targets of interest are powerpc-eabi, powerpc-linux and m68k-??? I don't have a good answer to this question. binutils 2.9.1 is certainly better tested than the CVS snapshots. For GNU/Linux, H.J.'s snapshot releases are well tested. For anything else, I guess you just have to balance newer sources with lack of testing. I don't know how to resolve that balance for you. If you have specific bugs that you want fixed, consider looking through the CVS sources and picking out the bug fixes. If you can't do that, using the CVS sources may be too risky for you, since you may run into bugs you can't fix. Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: binutils newer than 2.9.1 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Charles Gauthier 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Charles Gauthier @ 1999-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: binutils We are using binutils 2.9.4 for m68k-rtemself (really elf32-m68k). We have not yet identified any problems with this target. The code was checked out of the CVS repository two weeks ago. The only difference I saw between 2.9.1 and .2.9.4 as an end-user is in the linker scripts. 2.9.4 has new directives which were used extensively in the sample elf linker scripts. Specifically, SORT, KEEP, and CONSTRUCTORS were introduced. For elf targets, we elected to stick with 2.9.4 and to use the new linking directives. I have no experience with 2.9.4 and powerpc, other than building the toolsuite for powerpc-rtems from the cygwin source. It built! Once my colleague finishes the port of RTEMS to the MBX860, I intend to try 2.9.4 from the CVS repository, just to keep all my cross development tools at the same version level. I believe she is doing all of her work with 2.9.1. I think that powerpc-rtems, powerpc-eabi and powerpc-linux are all the same in the sense that they produce elf32-powerpc code. The difference is only in the default compilation flags and default libraries and startup files. Any bug in binutils will likely show up for all three targets. I have no strong opinion about using 2.9.1 or 2.9.4. Neither one has caused us problems (that we know about). Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:22:14 +0000 > From: Brendan Simon <brendan@dgs.monash.edu.au> > > If I want later versions of binutils (I am unsure of how necessary this is) > then it would appear that CVS would be the best option and to checkout > snapshots that are known to be reasonably reliable. Would you suggest this > as a wise thing or to just stick with the stock standard 2.9.1 ? Maybe the > cygwin sources of binutils might be the best option ? My main targets of > interest are powerpc-eabi, powerpc-linux and m68k-??? > > I don't have a good answer to this question. binutils 2.9.1 is > certainly better tested than the CVS snapshots. For GNU/Linux, H.J.'s > snapshot releases are well tested. For anything else, I guess you > just have to balance newer sources with lack of testing. I don't know > how to resolve that balance for you. > > If you have specific bugs that you want fixed, consider looking > through the CVS sources and picking out the bug fixes. If you can't > do that, using the CVS sources may be too risky for you, since you may > run into bugs you can't fix. > > Ian -- Charles-Antoine Gauthier Research Officer Software Engineering Group Institute for Information Technology National Research Council of Canada Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0R6 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: binutils newer than 2.9.1 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Charles Gauthier @ 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 1999-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Charles.Gauthier; +Cc: binutils Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 09:00:02 -0400 From: "Charles Gauthier" <Charles.Gauthier@iit.nrc.ca> We are using binutils 2.9.4 for m68k-rtemself (really elf32-m68k). I just want to caution people against referring to any set of sources as binutils 2.9.4. There is no single set of sources which that describes. Some binutils which identify themselves as 2.9.4 will be very buggy and unusable. Some may work fine. Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: binutils newer than 2.9.1 1999-07-01 0:00 binutils newer than 2.9.1 Brendan Simon 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Mumit Khan 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Brendan Simon 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Mumit Khan @ 1999-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: brendan; +Cc: binutils Brendan Simon <brendan@dgs.monash.edu.au> writes: > Where can I find binutils releases that are newer version 2.9.1 ? > I read in one of Mumit Khan's cross-compiler howtos that 2.9.4 is > recommended for building the cygwin32/mingw32 compilers. There is a > reference to where to obtain these but I would like to latest tested > release when building all the cross-compilers I am interested in (mainly > powerpc and m68k). I'd prefer not to use CVS as this might be too > bleeding-edge for my purposes. (I assume you've already seen Ian's response to your questions) To get what I call binutils-2.9.4 in my howto, you can get either get the whole Cygwin source tree [1] (big!), or just get the pieces that form binutils separately [2] that you can combine to re-create the 2.9.4 tree. [1] ftp://sourceware.cygnus.com/pub/cygwin/cygwin-b20/ [2] ftp://sourceware.cygnus.com/pub/cygwin/cygwin-b20/src-by-top-dir/ Here's what I had posted to the Cygwin mailing list a while back: Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:40:35 CST cc: cygwin mailing list <cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com> Subject: Re: How to compile binutils Thanks to DJ's addition of toplevel.tar.bz2, it's very complete. Here's a list of files needed for binutils-2.9.4 (I just wrote this up yesterday for my mingw-cross-howto guide, so you're in luck): bfd.tar.bz2 gas.tar.bz2 ld.tar.bz2 toplevel.tar.bz2 binutils.tar.bz2 gprof.tar.bz2 libiberty.tar.bz2 config.tar.bz2 include.tar.bz2 opcodes.tar.bz2 etc.tar.bz2 intl.tar.bz2 texinfo.tar.bz2 After you get these, unpack each one in the same place and you'll have everything needed to rebuild binutils. Regards, Mumit ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: binutils newer than 2.9.1 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Mumit Khan @ 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Brendan Simon 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Mumit Khan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Brendan Simon @ 1999-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mumit Khan; +Cc: binutils Mumit Khan wrote: > To get what I call binutils-2.9.4 in my howto, you can get either get > the whole Cygwin source tree [1] (big!), or just get the pieces that > form binutils separately [2] that you can combine to re-create the 2.9.4 > tree. > > [1] ftp://sourceware.cygnus.com/pub/cygwin/cygwin-b20/ > [2] ftp://sourceware.cygnus.com/pub/cygwin/cygwin-b20/src-by-top-dir/ > > Here's what I had posted to the Cygwin mailing list a while back: > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:40:35 CST > cc: cygwin mailing list <cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com> > Subject: Re: How to compile binutils > > Thanks to DJ's addition of toplevel.tar.bz2, it's very complete. > Here's a list of files needed for binutils-2.9.4 (I just wrote this > up yesterday for my mingw-cross-howto guide, so you're in luck): > > bfd.tar.bz2 gas.tar.bz2 ld.tar.bz2 toplevel.tar.bz2 > binutils.tar.bz2 gprof.tar.bz2 libiberty.tar.bz2 > config.tar.bz2 include.tar.bz2 opcodes.tar.bz2 > etc.tar.bz2 intl.tar.bz2 texinfo.tar.bz2 I assume these files have other updates for targets other than cygwin32/mingw32. Is that correct ? Is this site likely to be maintained/updated regularly or do you think that I am better off using CVS and checking out snapshots that are known to be reasonably reliable ? Thanks, Brendan Simon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: binutils newer than 2.9.1 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Brendan Simon @ 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Mumit Khan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Mumit Khan @ 1999-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: binutils On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Brendan Simon wrote: > Mumit Khan wrote: > > > To get what I call binutils-2.9.4 in my howto, you can get either get > > the whole Cygwin source tree [1] (big!), or just get the pieces that > > form binutils separately [2] that you can combine to re-create the 2.9.4 > > tree. [...] > > I assume these files have other updates for targets other than > cygwin32/mingw32. Is that correct ? > Is this site likely to be maintained/updated regularly or do you think that I > am better off using CVS and checking out snapshots that are known to be > reasonably reliable ? I'm in no position to judge whether the binutils packaged with Cygwin works well with targets other than pe-coff or not. I only use this for the various x86-win32 targets that I use, and use binutils-2.9.1 + patches that are on the net for other targets (including ppc-eabi). I do remember that I had some trouble with ppc-eabi when using binutils 2.9.4 (forward labels didn't have the right offset or some such thing), and ended up using 2.9.1. If you're supporting many targets, getting it out of CVS is probably the way to go (don't forget to run the testsuite!). Regards, Mumit ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-07-01 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1999-07-01 0:00 binutils newer than 2.9.1 Brendan Simon 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Brendan Simon 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Charles Gauthier 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Ian Lance Taylor 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Mumit Khan 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Brendan Simon 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Mumit Khan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).