From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Larmour To: Grant Edwards Cc: ecos-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: [ECOS] Officially recommended gcc version? Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 08:30:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B76A132.E4C5E8AF@redhat.com> References: <20010811123745.A21776@visi.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00354.html 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