Re: Definitely Getting Closer

[Mark Palmerino <mbp at csr-bos dot com>]

Hi Kai et. al.,


> Just look at what '-Dm68xyz' options the compiler gives to the 'cpp' there and
> you will see that the addresses being the same is right for m68332 !!! The
> DOS- hosted compiler under Windoze produced m68000-code, not m68332-code...

Hmmm, does this mean that if I use the right flags that I can coax 2.8.1 to
produce "working" executables?  If so, it isn't as easy as -m68000, is it?

But see below...

 
>> I guess the next question is, how can I discover why the libraries from the
>> windows system are successful at producing a working program while the
>> libraries that were built under unix are not successful?
> 
> Perhaps there really is some problem with the mcpu32-support in gcc-2.8.1,
> just remember that it was originally disabled ! The "Windows"-libs were
> compiled with egcs-1.1.2, not with gcc-2.8.1 although the '2.8.1' was a ghost
> there...
> 
>> Again, I hardly know where to begin...
> 
> What about building gcc-2.95.3-pre4 for m68k-coff now or later ? ;-) And
> adding the ISR-patches I sent into the sources. The 2.95.3 should serve for a
> while...

Ok, ok (squirming with arm up behind back), I give up!  I will try to build
a "higher" version of gcc. (I guess you don't mind my pestering to much!)

Are you really suggesting something other than 2.95.2?  Should I procure
this thing called gcc-2.95.3-pre4?  And remember, I'm working on MachTen
under the MacOS - I'm gonna need some hand holding...

(And if it isn't clear, thank you very much for all your help!)

Regards,

Mark


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com