* Re: ppc-linux gcc configury patch
[not found] ` <19990607174358.A1945@cygnus.com>
@ 1999-07-01 0:00 ` Franz Sirl
1999-07-01 0:00 ` Richard Henderson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Franz Sirl @ 1999-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Henderson; +Cc: Cort Dougan, binutils
At 02:43 08.06.99 , Richard Henderson wrote:
> > If there's no compatibility problem with glibc-1.99, changing
> > TEXT_START_ADDR for elf32ppc would be enough, the values in
> > there are already Linux-specific.
>
>Well, not quite.
>
>Mon Jun 16 19:18:21 1997 Geoff Keating <geoffk@ozemail.com.au>
>
> * emulparams/elf32ppc.sh (TEXT_START_ADDR): The ABI says `A
> program base of 0x02000000 is recommended...' because otherwise
> shared libraries are less efficient.
>
>As such there may well be other elf32ppc users (embedded systems
>folks mostly, so I don't know how much it matters in practice)
>that would prefer to have the default remain unchanged.
Uhm, you left out the most important part of this ChangeLog entry, it
continues as follows:
We use 0x01800000 because otherwise it's impossible to branch to
location 0, for instance if you have an undefined weak symbol.
So it _is_ already Linux/PPC specific.
>Given that I do not expect a native Linux system to have more than
>one of elf32ppc or elf32ppclinux installed, I don't see what
>relevance your LIB_PATH argument is.
See Dan's bugreport on binutils, that's exactly what happens. Without
special measurements it's impossible to bootstrap gcc-2.95 now. With the
old binutils the stage compilers will barf, with the new binutils
egcs-1.1.2 will barf :-(. Wouldn't it be better to split out an
elf32ppceabi if an embedded guy ever requests it? I would assume embedded
doesn't need a native library search patch anyway.
Franz.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread