* [Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken
[not found] <20010729110601.3867.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
@ 2003-10-30 6:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-11-08 22:31 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-30 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken
[not found] <20010729110601.3867.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
2003-10-30 6:58 ` [Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-11-08 22:31 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
2003-11-09 1:32 ` dj at redhat dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi at yahoo dot com @ 2003-11-08 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken
[not found] <20010729110601.3867.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
2003-10-30 6:58 ` [Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-11-08 22:31 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
@ 2003-11-09 1:32 ` dj at redhat dot com
2004-01-18 19:05 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dj at redhat dot com @ 2003-11-09 1:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken
[not found] <20010729110601.3867.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-11-09 1:32 ` dj at redhat dot com
@ 2004-01-18 19:05 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
2004-01-20 1:50 ` dj at redhat dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi at yahoo dot com @ 2004-01-18 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken
[not found] <20010729110601.3867.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-18 19:05 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
@ 2004-01-20 1:50 ` dj at redhat dot com
2004-01-20 20:42 ` aoliva at redhat dot com
2004-04-03 20:49 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dj at redhat dot com @ 2004-01-20 1:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken
[not found] <20010729110601.3867.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-20 1:50 ` dj at redhat dot com
@ 2004-01-20 20:42 ` aoliva at redhat dot com
2004-04-03 20:49 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: aoliva at redhat dot com @ 2004-01-20 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/3867] [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken
[not found] <20010729110601.3867.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-01-20 20:42 ` aoliva at redhat dot com
@ 2004-04-03 20:49 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi at yahoo dot com @ 2004-04-03 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread