This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Officially recommended gcc version?
- To: Grant Edwards <grante at visi dot com>
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] Officially recommended gcc version?
- From: Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 16:30:58 +0100
- CC: ecos-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <20010811123745.A21776@visi.com>
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