RE: Newer gcc versions and m68k-coff?

[David Korn <dkorn at pixelpower dot com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry Gray [mailto:larry@greenmotor.com]
>Sent: 11 October 2001 20:41


>	I got a cross-compiler working for m68k-coff with gcc-2.95.1,
>binutils-2.9.1 and newlib-1.8.2. Now, I've got to set up another 
>computer, so I thought I would use the newer versions,

  Minor point: if you're using these for production software, it would
make sense to use the same versions of the tools throughout.  If not, of
course, it doesn't really matter.

>and I'm having trouble. I'm following "Getting Started with GNU", by
>William Gatliff, (an excellent document)

  I'll second that!

> and substituting m68k-coff for the target.

> My first combination was gcc-3.0.1, binutils-2.11.2, and newlib-1.9.0.
>All works fine until I tried to build the complete compiler. This stops,
>complaining about "can't build executables". I've searched the archives,
>and found that a bottle of wine and a clean directory would solve this,
>I tried both, with no luck.

  I approve of your programming technique.  I haven't tried gcc 3.x series,
but the "can't build executables" error is quite a common one in 2.x builds
as well, and it generally results when somethings wrong with the config
options or the $PATH, as it means that it's either finding the cross-
compiler when it's looking for the native one, or it's not finding any
compiler at all.  If you post the details of the setup procedure you 
followed before building and config options you used with it, and the tail
end of the output showing the failed build, we might be able to solve that
one with a bit of collective head-scratching.

>  I then tried gcc-2.95.3, binutils-2.11.2, and newlib-1.9.0. Other than
>not being able to build the c++ compiler, this worked. However, when I try
>to build using the -m68000 flag, I get:
>
>/tmp/ccgGZR2A.s: Assembler messages:
>/tmp/ccgGZR2A.s:1101: Error: short branch with zero offset: use :w
>/tmp/ccgGZR2A.s:1101: Error: invalid byte branch offset

  I would abandon binutils 2.11 and go back to 2.10.  I tried 2.11 with
the 2.95.x series once and got in a hopeless mess and gave up;  I think
it may have changed in ways that keep it in step with gcc-3 but don't
work with the older ones.  2.95.x and 2.9/2.10 are basically contemporary
and well-known to be compatible; unless the combination gives you bugs,
I can't see any reason to worry about staying up to the minute with the
latest releases. 

 [ Aside: it's painful to have to say this, but 3.0 was out how long before
a bugfix release had to be made?  And 2.11 has been through three versions
already?  Reliability is in a bad way :-( and I've made a personal decision
not to venture across the 2.x -> 3.x barrier for at least another six months
or year or until things settle down.  This is all somewhat of a subjective
impression, of course, since as I say I haven't been trying to work with
them myself. ]


       DaveK
-- 
Burn your ID card!  http://www.optional-identity.org.uk/
Help support the campaign, copy this into your .sig!


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************

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