Re: GNU/Cross Tools RPMs available

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Brian LaPonsey wrote:
> I see you have binutils and gdb for mcore-elf, but not an mcore-elf-gcc.  I
> have written a build script that builds all the tools and runs the test
> suite on the FSF's "plain vanilla" gcc source tree, and I have found that
> gcc-3.0.4 has far fewer unexpected failures than gcc-3.2.1 for the mcore-elf
> target (147 vs. 241).  In contrast, the test results for powerpc-eabi are
> something like 19 unexpected failures.  The test suite is run with the
> simulator as a target.
Kudos for getting that far with gcc-3.2.1 and the test suite.
I'm still trying to get off my duff and run it here against 3.0.4 to
get a baseline.  I hadn't thought of running it against the simulator;
does the simulator support ppc403/ppc405 and ppc750?  That might come in handy here.

It might be helpful if you posted a list of the regressions
between gcc-3.0.4 and gcc-3.2.1.  Montavista Linux 3.0 uses
a gcc-3.2.x compiler, it'd be interesting to see if they
have resolved some of those.

- Dan



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