[ECOS] Officially recommended gcc version?

[ECOS] Officially recommended gcc version?

[Grant Edwards]

What's the officially recommended gcc version for building eCos?

  2.95.2 + ecos-gcc-2952.pat
  2.95.2.1
  2.95.3

The web page at http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/tools/linux-arm-elf.html
shows the first option (2.95.2 + patch).

-- 
Grant Edwards
grante@visi.com

Re: [ECOS] Officially recommended gcc version?

[Jonathan Larmour]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> 
> What's the officially recommended gcc version for building eCos?

"Official" is what you make of it. There's no "official" support, so really
you can do what you want - it's just we do know about some things that
don't work.
 
>   2.95.2 + ecos-gcc-2952.pat
>   2.95.2.1
>   2.95.3
> 
> The web page at http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/tools/linux-arm-elf.html
> shows the first option (2.95.2 + patch).

The patch will be needed on some targets even if you used the 2.95.3 code
base - it includes a few things that were not suitable for 2.95.3. However,
the patch won't apply to 2.95.3 cleanly :-|. I never reworked it for 2.95.3
because 3.0 was so close and I didn't want to retest a whole bunch of
targets. Unless you are hitting a definite obstacle, stick with the first
option. Alternatively if you need 2.95.3 for other reasons you'll have to
resolve the patch conflicts.

I will resolve as many gcc 3.0 issues as I can, and rewrite the build
instructions shortly. This will also include building libstdc++, which I
haven't finished making work with eCos, but I'm nearly there... but that's
one of the reasons for procrastinating.

Jifl
-- 
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine

Re: [ECOS] Officially recommended gcc version?

[Grant Edwards]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 04:30:58PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:

> > What's the officially recommended gcc version for building
> > eCos?
> 
> "Official" is what you make of it. There's no "official"
> support, so really you can do what you want - it's just we do
> know about some things that don't work.

That's official enough for me...

> > The web page at
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/tools/linux-arm-elf.html shows
> > the first option (2.95.2 + patch).
> 
> The patch will be needed on some targets even if you used the
> 2.95.3 code base - it includes a few things that were not
> suitable for 2.95.3. However, the patch won't apply to 2.95.3
> cleanly :-|. I never reworked it for 2.95.3 because 3.0 was so
> close and I didn't want to retest a whole bunch of targets.
> Unless you are hitting a definite obstacle, stick with the
> first option.

That's what I was tentatively planning unless somebody knew of
a reason not to.  That's now the "official" plan.  :)

[Thanks for the update on 3.0 progress.]

-- 
Grant Edwards
grante@visi.com