From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4551 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2012 18:40:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 4306 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2012 18:40:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from tirion.supremecenter202.com (HELO tirion.supremecenter202.com) (209.25.195.243) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:40:39 +0000 Received: from [195.189.206.101] (port=32918 helo=[192.168.209.103]) by tirion.supremecenter202.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RpOon-0005GH-6y; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:40:37 +0000 Message-ID: <4F1DA9A0.5070702@siva.com.mk> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:40:00 -0000 From: Ilija Kocho User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Larmour CC: eCos developers Subject: Re: Gnutools: consideration for upgrade to GCC 4.6 References: <4F106345.4080902@siva.com.mk> <4F11574D.9070002@dallaway.org.uk> <4F11AC54.7000902@siva.com.mk> <4F1CB41C.90900@jifvik.org> In-Reply-To: <4F1CB41C.90900@jifvik.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 On 23.01.2012 02:13, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > On 14/01/12 16:24, Ilija Kocho wrote: >> On 14.01.2012 11:22, John Dallaway wrote: >>> There are sure to be some new compiler warnings to deal with in the eCos >>> sources. Are you aware of the scale of this issue with eCos CVS and GCC >>> 4.6.2? >> If it could be some measure, the compilation of eCos library for the >> /default/ template (target K60N512) raises 11 warnings, all seem to be >> the same type: >> warning: variable ‘’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] >> Some cases are unused variables indeed, but of some the usage is >> "hidden" (within asm() or macro). > Try redboot (on a target including flash and network). There's a lot more > there. Thank you for notice jifl, my systems are typically small and I seldom use RedBoot. I'm not surprised as some warnings also appear with GCC 4.3.2. Testing period would be an opportunity to get rid of them. >>> There are a few patches that were applied to current toolchain sources: >>> >>> ftp://ecos.sourceware.org/pub/ecos/gnutools/src/ >>> >>> It would be useful to review these and determine which are still >>> relevant. >> I have implemented them in my build (for ARM only). They seem to fit >> with the new code but regarding relevancy it probably requires more >> analysis and better knowledge of GCC intrinsics than mine. > Feel free to ask. This one : --- gcc-4.3.2.clean/gcc/config/arm/arm.h 2008-09-22 19:41:47.000000000 +0100 +++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/config/arm/arm.h 2008-10-03 22:54:49.000000000 +0100 @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ extern void (*arm_lang_output_object_att #define TARGET_BACKTRACE (leaf_function_p () \ ? TARGET_TPCS_LEAF_FRAME \ : TARGET_TPCS_FRAME) -#define TARGET_LDRD (arm_arch5e && ARM_DOUBLEWORD_ALIGN) +#define TARGET_LDRD (0) /* arm_arch5e && ARM_DOUBLEWORD_ALIGN) */ #define TARGET_AAPCS_BASED \ (arm_abi != ARM_ABI_APCS && arm_abi != ARM_ABI_ATPCS) I suppose that it is related to infamous Cortex-M LDRD bug http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.faqs/ka8542.html for which control has been provided in GCC 4.4 http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/changes.html I have rejected this patch, but my assumption may be wrong. Please confirm. Ilija