public inbox for gas2@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)
To: joel@OARcorp.com
Cc: gas2@cygnus.com, corsepiu@faw.uni-ulm.de
Subject: Re: binutils powerpc problems (fwd)
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 08:10:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m10UB0u-000ErMC@ocean.lucon.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990405085017.19588A-100000@oar3remote>

> 
> 
> 
> Bummer... upgrading did not solve this one for Ralf.  :(
> 
> Here is what he sent me.
> 
> --joel
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 05:40:41 +0200
> From: Ralf Corsepius <corsepiu@faw.uni-ulm.de>
> To: joel@oarcorp.com
> Subject: Re: binutils powerpc problems
> 
> joel@oarcorp.com wrote:
> 
> > I know Ralf ran into this.  Just in case someone else did, here is the
> > response.   Let me know if this fixes it for you.
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> The situation is the same with binutils-2.9.1.0.22b, binutils-2.9.1.0.23
> and gas-990324
> 
> But now I think I've found the problem:
> 
> /usr/bin/install -c -m 0644
> ../../../../../../../../rtems-rc-19990401-0/c/src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/dmv177/wrapup/../bsp_specs
> /lfs/poseidon/users/rtems/src/multi/build/./eth_comm/lib/bsp_specs
> 
> ==>The wrong bsp_specs file gets installed to the build-tree.
> 
> This happens during processing the preinstall rule in c/Makefile.
> 
> This is an excerpt of: c/make_src_makefiles
> 
> > [..]
> > ./src/lib/libbsp/shmdr/Makefile
> > ./src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/dmv177/wrapup/Makefile
> > ./src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/eth_comm/wrapup/Makefile
> > ./src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/helas403/wrapup/Makefile
> > ./src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/papyrus/wrapup/Makefile
> > ./src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/ppcn_60x/wrapup/Makefile
> > ./src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/psim/wrapup/Makefile
> > ./src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/score603e/wrapup/Makefile
> > ./src/lib/libc/Makefile
> > [..]
> >
> Each of these lines is read in and the Makefile contained in this line is
> called with RTEMS_BSP=${RTEMS_BSP} passed through the environment.
> 
> Each of the wrapup/Makefile's contains a rule of this kind:
> 
> > $(PROJECT_ROOT)/${RTEMS_BSP}/bsp_specs: ../bsp_specs
> >     $(INSTALL_DATA) $< $@
> >
> > preinstall: $(PROJECT_ROOT)/${RTEMS_BSP}/bsp_specs
> >
> 
> With "make RTEMS_BSP=eth_comm" invoked in src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/dmv177,
> the dmv177 bsp_specs gets installed for eth_comm and no other bsp_specs
> will get installed afterwards.
> 
> <rant> That preinstall crap interfers with one of my "towards automake"
> patches again </rant>
> 
> ------
> This would also explain why I am not able to build most of the m68k BSPs
> (Not yet cross-checked)
> 
> ------
> Now I don't understand why you don't seem to be effected by this problem.
> AFAIS, it must be present for all cpus with more than one BSP !
> 
> I assume the cause for you not getting this problem is the order of inodes
> on our disks, because c/Makefile.in applies "find", which by lucky chance
> installs a bsp_specs to the build-tree which presumably is compatible to
> all powerpc BSPs in your case and only to some BSPs in my case.
> 
> ------
> I don't have a work-around or fix for this problem yet (It's 5:30am and I
> urgently need to get some sleep), but this bug is severe enough to be fixed
> pretty soon, if not to release a new snapshot.
> 
> I can imagine half a dozen of find/sed/grep/make trickery to work around
> this problem in c/Makefile.in, so I can probably come up with a work-around
> tomorrow, however I didn't find anything convincing yet.
> 
> Ralf
> 
> 

I added

	--multilib-dir PATH         Specify a target directory

to ld to solve the similar problem of one of my clients. They have
more one one BSP for one CPU. If you use binutils 2.9.1.0.2x, it
is in there. Here is the whole ChangeLog:

Wed Sep 16 07:32:44 1998  H.J. Lu  (hjl@gnu.org)

        * ld.h (args_type): Add one field, multilib_dir.

        * ldfile.c (ldfile_add_library_path): Add one argument, append.
        * ldfile.h (ldfile_add_library_path): Likewise.

        * ldgram.y: Calling ldfile_add_library_path with one more
        argument, true.
        * ldmain.c: Likewise.
        * lexsup.c: Likewise.

        * ldmain.c (check_for_scripts_dir): Add one argument, append.
        (main): Initialize command_line.multilib_dir to NULL.
        (set_scripts_dir): If command_line.multilib_dir is not NULL,
        prepend it to search path.

        * lexsup.c (OPTION_MULTILIB_DIR): New.
        (parse_args): Handle OPTION_MULTILIB_DIR.

        * emultempl/elf32.em (gld${EMULATION_NAME}_get_script): If
        command_line.multilib_dir != NULL, get linker scripts from
        files.

It may be useful to solve your problem.


-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)

      reply	other threads:[~1999-04-05  8:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1999-04-05  6:43 joel
1999-04-05  8:10 ` H.J. Lu [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=m10UB0u-000ErMC@ocean.lucon.org \
    --to=hjl@lucon.org \
    --cc=corsepiu@faw.uni-ulm.de \
    --cc=gas2@cygnus.com \
    --cc=joel@OARcorp.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).