[Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3867


pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |patch


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-10-30 06:45 -------
patch here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-11/msg01361.html>

[Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[dhazeghi at yahoo dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi at yahoo dot com  2003-11-08 22:31 -------
DJ, do you have any suggestions for this problem? Is the patch referenced
sufficient? Is djgpp sufficiently buildable on current gcc that such a patch
would make much of a difference? Thanks.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dj at redhat dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3867

[Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[dj at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dj at redhat dot com  2003-11-09 01:32 -------
Subject: Re:  [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken


The patch seems sufficient, but I still need to test and review it.  I
only recently got my DJGPP build working again (re the -imacros bugs).
I just need to find time to go through the DJGPP backlog.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3867

[Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[dhazeghi at yahoo dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi at yahoo dot com  2004-01-18 19:05 -------
DJ, any chance you might be able to have a look at this soon? Thanks.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3867

[Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[dj at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dj at redhat dot com  2004-01-20 01:50 -------
Subject: Re:  [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken


> DJ, any chance you might be able to have a look at this soon? Thanks.

The code in configure.in (er, configure.ac) changed so I adapted the
patch by simply adding a second whole test.  Tested with a
linux-x-djgpp cross and a linux native.  Alex, this look OK to you?

2004-01-19  DJ Delorie  <dj@redhat.com>

	* configure.ac (gcc_cv_as_eh_frame2): New, check non-elf
	systems also and override gcc_cv_as_eh_frame.
	* configure: Regenerate.

Index: configure.ac
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/configure.ac,v
retrieving revision 2.8
diff -p -2 -r2.8 configure.ac
*** configure.ac	19 Jan 2004 16:57:04 -0000	2.8
--- configure.ac	20 Jan 2004 01:38:34 -0000
*************** EOF
*** 2021,2024 ****
--- 2021,2091 ----
    fi])
  
+ if test $gcc_cv_as_eh_frame != yes; then
+ # Also check for non-ELF syntax
+ gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE(non-elf eh_frame optimization, gcc_cv_as_eh_frame2,
+   [2,12,0],,
+ [	.text
+ .LFB1:
+ 	.long	0
+ .L1:
+ 	.long	0
+ .LFE1:
+ 	.section	.eh_frame
+ __FRAME_BEGIN__:
+ 	.long	.LECIE1-.LSCIE1
+ .LSCIE1:
+ 	.long	0x0
+ 	.byte	0x1
+ 	.ascii "z\0"
+ 	.byte	0x1
+ 	.byte	0x78
+ 	.byte	0x1a
+ 	.byte	0x0
+ 	.byte	0x4
+ 	.long	1
+ 	.p2align 1
+ .LECIE1:
+ .LSFDE1:
+ 	.long	.LEFDE1-.LASFDE1
+ .LASFDE1:
+ 	.long	.LASFDE1-__FRAME_BEGIN__
+ 	.long	.LFB1
+ 	.long	.LFE1-.LFB1
+ 	.byte	0x4
+ 	.long	.LFE1-.LFB1
+ 	.byte	0x4
+ 	.long	.L1-.LFB1
+ .LEFDE1:],
+ [  dnl # For autoconf 2.5x, must protect trailing spaces with @&t@.
+ cat > conftest.lit <<EOF
+  0000 10000000 00000000 017a0001 781a0004  .........z..x...
+  0010 01000000 12000000 18000000 00000000  ................
+  0020 08000000 04080000 00440000           .........D..    @&t@
+ EOF
+ cat > conftest.big <<EOF
+  0000 00000010 00000000 017a0001 781a0004  .........z..x...
+  0010 00000001 00000012 00000018 00000000  ................
+  0020 00000008 04000000 08440000           .........D..    @&t@
+ EOF
+   # If the assembler didn't choke, and we can objdump,
+   # and we got the correct data, then succeed.
+   if test x$gcc_cv_objdump != x \
+   && $gcc_cv_objdump -s -j .eh_frame conftest.o 2>/dev/null \
+      | tail -3 > conftest.got \
+   && { cmp conftest.lit conftest.got > /dev/null 2>&1 \
+     || cmp conftest.big conftest.got > /dev/null 2>&1; }
+   then
+     gcc_cv_as_eh_frame=yes
+     gcc_cv_as_eh_frame2=yes
+   elif AC_TRY_COMMAND($gcc_cv_as -o conftest.o --traditional-format /dev/null); then
+     gcc_cv_as_eh_frame=buggy
+     gcc_cv_as_eh_frame2=buggy
+   else
+     # Uh oh, what do we do now?
+     gcc_cv_as_eh_frame=no
+     gcc_cv_as_eh_frame2=no
+   fi])
+ fi
+ 
  if test $gcc_cv_as_eh_frame = buggy; then
    AC_DEFINE(USE_AS_TRADITIONAL_FORMAT, 1,


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3867

[Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[aoliva at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From aoliva at redhat dot com  2004-01-20 20:42 -------
Subject: Re:  [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

On Jan 19, 2004, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:

> Alex, this look OK to you?

I can't spot any problems.

> 2004-01-19  DJ Delorie  <dj@redhat.com>

> 	* configure.ac (gcc_cv_as_eh_frame2): New, check non-elf
> 	systems also and override gcc_cv_as_eh_frame.
> 	* configure: Regenerate.



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3867

[Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[dhazeghi at yahoo dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi at yahoo dot com  2004-04-03 20:49 -------
DJ, I can't see that this patch was ever applied? If it's still good, might be nice to finally wrap this issue 
up :-)

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3867