From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24186 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2012 19:29:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 24174 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2012 19:29:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from virtual.bogons.net (HELO virtual.bogons.net) (193.178.223.136) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:29:05 +0000 Received: from jifvik.dyndns.org (jifvik.dyndns.org [85.158.45.40]) by virtual.bogons.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.2) with ESMTP id q0NJSx119204; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:29:00 GMT Received: from lert.jifvik.org (lert.jifvik.org [172.31.1.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jifvik.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0823FE1; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:28:53 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4F1DB4F4.7040405@jifvik.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:29:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ilija Kocho 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> <4F1DA9A0.5070702@siva.com.mk> In-Reply-To: <4F1DA9A0.5070702@siva.com.mk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00037.txt.bz2 On 23/01/12 18:40, Ilija Kocho wrote: > > 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. You are spot on. That patch is indeed now obsolete for newer tools. It's funny to think that AFAIK it was in eCos (well, specifically, nickg@ecoscentric) it was first discovered when doing the port. Jifl