public inbox for binutils@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Binutil compatibility
@ 2002-01-24  8:45 Sava Zxivanovich
  2002-01-24 13:30 ` Geoff Keating
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Sava Zxivanovich @ 2002-01-24  8:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'binutils@sources.redhat.com'

Hi.

I am working with PowerPC 401 D2 - in deed PLX IOP480.

I have installed GCC chain that uses binutil 2.9.1, gcc 2.95.2 for
powerpc-elf. Due to fact that as in that version do not support one operand
- tlbwe, I have to upgrade to one I hope does support - 2.10.1. I would not
like to use 2.11, I had quit a bad time with it (and GCC 3.0.1).

My question is if binutil 2.10 does support operand tlwbe (PowerPC Embedded
Environment, PowerPC 401D2), would there be any problem if I configure
binutils as ppc-eabi (I suppose yes, I would like just to check that) and
would it be any problem with gcc 2.95.2 (I suppose not,but you never know).
 
Why am I asking all this? Well, we are very near to a point where we would
go with commercial compiler. Actually, this is a last cry before that.

Kind regards,
Sava

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Binutil compatibility
  2002-01-24  8:45 Binutil compatibility Sava Zxivanovich
@ 2002-01-24 13:30 ` Geoff Keating
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Geoff Keating @ 2002-01-24 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: sava.zxivanovich; +Cc: binutils

> From: Sava Zxivanovich <sava.zxivanovich@crsltd.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:05:25 -0000
> 
> Hi.
> 
> I am working with PowerPC 401 D2 - in deed PLX IOP480.
> 
> I have installed GCC chain that uses binutil 2.9.1, gcc 2.95.2 for
> powerpc-elf. Due to fact that as in that version do not support one operand
> - tlbwe, I have to upgrade to one I hope does support - 2.10.1. I would not
> like to use 2.11, I had quit a bad time with it (and GCC 3.0.1).

What problems did you have with 2.11?

> My question is if binutil 2.10 does support operand tlwbe (PowerPC Embedded
> Environment, PowerPC 401D2), would there be any problem if I configure
> binutils as ppc-eabi (I suppose yes, I would like just to check that) and
> would it be any problem with gcc 2.95.2 (I suppose not,but you never know).

I think it might be better if I explained some stuff first, to avoid
confusion.

Firstly, ppc-elf and ppc-eabi are both ELF.  The difference is that
the first uses the SVR4 ABI, the other uses the EABI by default.  You
can switch between ABIs in GCC by writing -meabi or -mno-eabi.  The
binutils contain support for both, in fact the same binutils are used
for both.  GCC looks for the binutils, though, by referencing the
precise target name it was configured for; even 'ppc-eabi' is
different from 'powerpc-eabi' and both are different from
'powerpc-unknown-eabi', even though they all generate the exact same
code.

As for 'tlbwe', there seem to be two versions, one specific to the 403
and one which is a general Book E instruction.  The general
instruction was added only after 2.11 was branched, along with much
other Book E support, and all that will be in 2.12.  The 403-specific
version was added much earlier.

> Why am I asking all this? Well, we are very near to a point where we would
> go with commercial compiler. Actually, this is a last cry before that.

Have you considered purchasing support for the FSF tools?  There are
many companies that provide such support.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* RE: Binutil compatibility
@ 2002-01-28  7:16 Sava Zxivanovich
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Sava Zxivanovich @ 2002-01-28  7:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'Geoff Keating '; +Cc: 'binutils@sources.redhat.com '


> > Hi.
> > 
> > I am working with PowerPC 401 D2 - in deed PLX IOP480.
> > 
> > I have installed GCC chain that uses binutil 2.9.1, gcc 2.95.2 for
> > powerpc-elf. Due to fact that as in that version do not 
> support one operand
> > - tlbwe, I have to upgrade to one I hope does support - 
> 2.10.1. I would not
> > like to use 2.11, I had quit a bad time with it (and GCC 3.0.1).
> 
> What problems did you have with 2.11?

I couldn't make GCC 3.0.1 cross compiler for PowerPC.
I followed instructions, but ...

> > My question is if binutil 2.10 does support operand tlwbe 
> (PowerPC Embedded Environment, PowerPC 401D2)

> As for 'tlbwe', there seem to be two versions, one specific to the 403
> and one which is a general Book E instruction.  The general
> instruction was added only after 2.11 was branched, along with much
> other Book E support, and all that will be in 2.12.  The 403-specific
> version was added much earlier.

Interesting.
I have upgraded binutils to 2.10. Some problems are solved.

> > Why am I asking all this? Well, we are very near to a point 
> where we would
> > go with commercial compiler. Actually, this is a last cry 
> before that.
> 
> Have you considered purchasing support for the FSF tools?  There are
> many companies that provide such support.

Problem is we are working with PLX stuff that is done for DIAB compiler
suit. If we have to pay for FSF support, advantage is obviously to buy DIAB
package. They give support with their compiler. Not to mention price of
these support packages - you get what you have paid for. But then again,
where is advantage of GNU? I do not want to live GNU, I would like to use
it. If I could contribute in some way, it is OK, but I don't want to be
obligated to do so. 

Again, you get what you have paid for.

Regards,
Sava

p.s.
Another problem with GNU is that you have to justify time spent with it.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2002-01-28 10:05 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-01-24  8:45 Binutil compatibility Sava Zxivanovich
2002-01-24 13:30 ` Geoff Keating
2002-01-28  7:16 Sava Zxivanovich

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).