install.texi and alpha (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

install.texi and alpha (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:
> 
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The alpha*-*-* section currently has this:

  We require binutils 2.11.2 or newer.
  Previous binutils releases had a number of problems with DWARF 2
  debugging information, not the least of which is incorrect linking of
  shared libraries.

Okay to yank this?

Gerald

[doc] Re: install.texi and alpha

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
>> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
>> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
>> around that.
> 
> The alpha*-*-* section currently has this:
> 
>   We require binutils 2.11.2 or newer.
>   Previous binutils releases had a number of problems with DWARF 2
>   debugging information, not the least of which is incorrect linking of
>   shared libraries.
> 
> Okay to yank this?

I do not recall ever seeing a response, and it's now been two
further years, so I went ahead and committed the patch below.

Gerald

2019-08-20  Gerald Pfeifer  <gerald@pfeifer.com>

	* doc/install.texi (Specific, alpha): Remove note to use
	binutils 2.11.2 or later.

Index: doc/install.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/install.texi	(revision 274619)
+++ doc/install.texi	(working copy)
@@ -3472,11 +3472,6 @@ This section contains general configuration inform
 Alpha-based platforms using ELF@.  In addition to reading this
 section, please read all other sections that match your target.
 
-We require binutils 2.11.2 or newer.
-Previous binutils releases had a number of problems with DWARF 2
-debugging information, not the least of which is incorrect linking of
-shared libraries.
-
 @html
 <hr />
 @end html

install.texi and arm (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:
> 
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The arm-*-eabi section currently has this:

  ARM-family processors.  Subtargets that use the ELF object format
  require GNU binutils 2.13 or newer.  Such subtargets include:
  @code{arm-*-netbsdelf}, @code{arm-*-*linux-*}
  and @code{arm-*-rtemseabi}.

Okay to yank this?

Gerald

Re: install.texi and arm

[Kyrill Tkachov]

On 12/03/17 11:31, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:
>>
>> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
>> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
>> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions
>> around that.
> The arm-*-eabi section currently has this:
>
>    ARM-family processors.  Subtargets that use the ELF object format
>    require GNU binutils 2.13 or newer.  Such subtargets include:
>    @code{arm-*-netbsdelf}, @code{arm-*-*linux-*}
>    and @code{arm-*-rtemseabi}.
>
> Okay to yank this?

Fine by me. Nick is much more involved in binutils development and so might have
a better view of how much older binutils are used in the wild though.
Nick, do you have any objections to this?

Thanks,
Kyrill

> Gerald

Re: install.texi and arm

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Guys,

>>> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
>>> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.

>>    ARM-family processors.  Subtargets that use the ELF object format
>>    require GNU binutils 2.13 or newer.  Such subtargets include:

>> Okay to yank this?
> 
> Fine by me.

Me too.

> Nick, do you have any objections to this?

None.  Are you intending to replace the requirement with a more recent
version of the binutils, or just remove the requirement entirely ?

Cheers
  Nick

Re: install.texi and arm

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Nick Clifton wrote:
>>> Okay to yank this?
>> Fine by me.
> Me too.

Okay, so I went ahead and committed the patch below.

> None.  Are you intending to replace the requirement with a more recent
> version of the binutils, or just remove the requirement entirely ?

This is mostly about removing references to versions of binutils a 
decade or so old.  It's hard to imagine that anyone would give any
such old version a try in 2017 and fresher and shorter documentation
faces a better chance of actually being consumed.

Gerald


2017-03-18  Gerald Pfeifer  <gerald@pfeifer.com>

	* doc/install.texi (Specific) <arm-*-eabi>: Remove old
	requirement for binutils 2.13.

Index: doc/install.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/install.texi	(revision 246253)
+++ doc/install.texi	(working copy)
@@ -3367,10 +3367,7 @@
 @end html
 @anchor{arm-x-eabi}
 @heading arm-*-eabi
-ARM-family processors.  Subtargets that use the ELF object format
-require GNU binutils 2.13 or newer.  Such subtargets include:
-@code{arm-*-netbsdelf}, @code{arm-*-*linux-*}
-and @code{arm-*-rtemseabi}.
+ARM-family processors.
 
 Building the Ada frontend commonly fails (an infinite loop executing
 @code{xsinfo}) if the host compiler is GNAT 4.8.  Host compilers built from the

install.texi and avr (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:
> 
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The avr section currently has this:

  We @emph{strongly} recommend using binutils 2.13 or newer.

Okay to yank it?

Gerald

Re: install.texi and avr (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Denis Chertykov]

2017-03-12 15:32 GMT+04:00 Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed:
>>
>> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
>> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
>> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions
>> around that.
>
> The avr section currently has this:
>
>   We @emph{strongly} recommend using binutils 2.13 or newer.
>
> Okay to yank it?

We can remove this line.

Denis

Re: install.texi and avr (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Denis Chertykov wrote:
>> The avr section currently has this:
>>
>>   We @emph{strongly} recommend using binutils 2.13 or newer.
>>
>> Okay to yank it?
> We can remove this line.

Done thusly, thank you.

Gerald

2017-03-13  Gerald Pfeifer  <gerald@pfeifer.com>

	* doc/install.texi (Specific) <avr>: Remove reference to
	binutils 2.13.

Index: doc/install.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/install.texi	(revision 246109)
+++ doc/install.texi	(working copy)
@@ -3396,8 +3396,6 @@
 @uref{http://www.amelek.gda.pl/avr/,,http://www.amelek.gda.pl/avr/}
 @end itemize
 
-We @emph{strongly} recommend using binutils 2.13 or newer.
-
 The following error:
 @smallexample
 Error: register required
> 

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The cris-axis-elf / cris-axis-linux-gnu section currently has this:

  For @code{cris-axis-elf} you need binutils 2.11
  or newer.  For @code{cris-axis-linux-gnu} you need binutils 2.12 or newer.

Okay to yank it?

Gerald

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:34:25 +0100 (CET)
> From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> > binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> > Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> > around that.
> 
> The cris-axis-elf / cris-axis-linux-gnu section currently has this:
> 
>   For @code{cris-axis-elf} you need binutils 2.11
>   or newer.  For @code{cris-axis-linux-gnu} you need binutils 2.12 or newer.
> 
> Okay to yank it?

Certainly!  Thanks.

brgds, H-P

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Certainly!  Thanks.

Done thusly; thanks for the quick response, H-P.

(May there be further changes to consider for cris-*?)

Gerald

2017-03-12  Gerald Pfeifer  <gerald@pfeifer.com>
 
	* doc/install.texi (Specific) <cris-axis-elf>: No longer
	refer to binutils 2.11/2.12 minimum.
 
Index: doc/install.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/install.texi	(revision 246077)
+++ doc/install.texi	(working copy)
@@ -3472,9 +3472,6 @@
 @samp{ETRAX 100 LX} by default.
 @end table
 
-For @code{cris-axis-elf} you need binutils 2.11
-or newer.  For @code{cris-axis-linux-gnu} you need binutils 2.12 or newer.
-
 Pre-packaged tools can be obtained from
 @uref{ftp://ftp.axis.com/@/pub/@/axis/@/tools/@/cris/@/compiler-kit/}.  More
 information about this platform is available at

Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:47:42 +0100
> From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>

> (May there be further changes to consider for cris-*?)

Nothing actively pursued and no news on related issues.

brgds, H-P

install.texi and i?86-*-linux* (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The i?86-*-linux* section currently has this:

  As of GCC 3.3, binutils 2.13.1 or later is required for this platform.
  See @uref{http://gcc.gnu.org/PR10877,,bug 10877} for more information.

Okay to yank it?

Gerald

install.texi and mips-*-* (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The mips-*-* currently has this:

  The assembler from GNU binutils 2.17 and earlier has a bug in the way
  it sorts relocations for REL targets (o32, o64, EABI).  This can cause
  bad code to be generated for simple C++ programs.  Also the linker
  from GNU binutils versions prior to 2.17 has a bug which causes the
  runtime linker stubs in very large programs to
  be incorrectly generated.  GNU Binutils 2.18 and later (and snapshots
  made after Nov. 9, 2006) should be free from both of these problems.

(Even that goes back more than 10 years.)

Okay to yank it?

RE: install.texi and mips-*-* (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Moore, Catherine]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald Pfeifer [mailto:gerald@pfeifer.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 7:38 AM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Moore, Catherine
> <Catherine_Moore@mentor.com>; Matthew Fortune
> <matthew.fortune@imgtec.com>
> Subject: install.texi and mips-*-* (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi
> love and care)
> 
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> > binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> > Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions
> > around that.
> 
> The mips-*-* currently has this:
> 
>   The assembler from GNU binutils 2.17 and earlier has a bug in the way
>   it sorts relocations for REL targets (o32, o64, EABI).  This can cause
>   bad code to be generated for simple C++ programs.  Also the linker
>   from GNU binutils versions prior to 2.17 has a bug which causes the
>   runtime linker stubs in very large programs to
>   be incorrectly generated.  GNU Binutils 2.18 and later (and snapshots
>   made after Nov. 9, 2006) should be free from both of these problems.
> 
> (Even that goes back more than 10 years.)
> 
> Okay to yank it?

Yes, thank you.  I will review the rest of the MIPS doc in install.texi this week.
Catherine

RE: install.texi and mips-*-*

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Moore, Catherine wrote:
>> Okay to yank it?
> Yes, thank you.  

Done per the patch below (committed).

> I will review the rest of the MIPS doc in install.texi this week.

Thank you!

Gerald


2017-03-12  Gerald Pfeifer  <gerald@pfeifer.com>
 
	* doc/install.texi (Specific) <mips-*-*>: Remove description of
	issue that only occurred with binutils below 2.18.
 
Index: doc/install.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/install.texi	(revision 246078)
+++ doc/install.texi	(working copy)
@@ -4122,14 +4122,6 @@
 @command{configure} option when configuring GCC@.  The default is to
 use traps on systems that support them.
 
-The assembler from GNU binutils 2.17 and earlier has a bug in the way
-it sorts relocations for REL targets (o32, o64, EABI).  This can cause
-bad code to be generated for simple C++ programs.  Also the linker
-from GNU binutils versions prior to 2.17 has a bug which causes the
-runtime linker stubs in very large programs to
-be incorrectly generated.  GNU Binutils 2.18 and later (and snapshots
-made after Nov. 9, 2006) should be free from both of these problems.
-
 @html
 <hr />
 @end html

install.texi and sparc-*-linux* (was: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
> around that.

The section on sparc-*-linux* currently has this:

  GCC versions 3.0 and higher require binutils 2.11.2 and glibc 2.2.4
  or newer on this platform.  All earlier binutils and glibc
  releases mishandled unaligned relocations on @code{sparc-*-*} targets.

Okay to yank it?

Gerald

Re: install.texi and sparc-*-linux*

[David Miller]

From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:39:56 +0100 (CET)

> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> References to dependencies on really, really old versions of
>> binutils (talking 10+ years here) which I think we can remove.
>> Let me follow-up with some of you with concrete suggestions 
>> around that.
> 
> The section on sparc-*-linux* currently has this:
> 
>   GCC versions 3.0 and higher require binutils 2.11.2 and glibc 2.2.4
>   or newer on this platform.  All earlier binutils and glibc
>   releases mishandled unaligned relocations on @code{sparc-*-*} targets.
> 
> Okay to yank it?

No objections from me.

Re: install.texi and sparc-*-linux*

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, David Miller wrote:
>> Okay to yank it?
> No objections from me.

Thanks.  Here is what I just committed.

Gerald


2017-03-19  Gerald Pfeifer  <gerald@pfeifer.com>

	* doc/install.texi (Specific) <sparc-*-linux*>: No longer refer 
	to age-old versions of binutils and glibc.

Index: doc/install.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/install.texi	(revision 246259)
+++ doc/install.texi	(working copy)
@@ -4510,11 +4510,6 @@
 @anchor{sparc-x-linux}
 @heading sparc-*-linux*
 
-GCC versions 3.0 and higher require binutils 2.11.2 and glibc 2.2.4
-or newer on this platform.  All earlier binutils and glibc
-releases mishandled unaligned relocations on @code{sparc-*-*} targets.
-
-
 @html
 <hr />
 @end html

Re: install.texi and sparc-*-linux*

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mär 19 2017, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:

> Index: doc/install.texi
> ===================================================================
> --- doc/install.texi	(revision 246259)
> +++ doc/install.texi	(working copy)
> @@ -4510,11 +4510,6 @@
>  @anchor{sparc-x-linux}
>  @heading sparc-*-linux*
>  
> -GCC versions 3.0 and higher require binutils 2.11.2 and glibc 2.2.4
> -or newer on this platform.  All earlier binutils and glibc
> -releases mishandled unaligned relocations on @code{sparc-*-*} targets.
> -
> -
>  @html
>  <hr />
>  @end html

The section is now empty.  Should it be removed at all?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: install.texi and sparc-*-linux*

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>  @anchor{sparc-x-linux}
>>  @heading sparc-*-linux*
> The section is now empty.  Should it be removed at all?

I considered that, but then figured we do want to keep this as
an indicator this is a supported platform (and also placeholder
if/when any new items worth documenting appear).

That said, I don't feel strongly at all and will happily remove
this if that's the preference here.

Gerald

Re: install.texi and sparc-*-linux*

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mär 21 2017, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Mar 2017, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>  @anchor{sparc-x-linux}
>>>  @heading sparc-*-linux*
>> The section is now empty.  Should it be removed at all?
>
> I considered that, but then figured we do want to keep this as
> an indicator this is a supported platform (and also placeholder
> if/when any new items worth documenting appear).

There should probably at least be a short description of the target,
like it is present for all other targets without specific instructions.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."