[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8
From: |
Camm Maguire |
Subject: |
Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8 |
Date: |
23 Feb 2004 15:40:00 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
Greetings! Thanks for these notes, Vadim!
"Vadim V. Zhytnikov" <address@hidden> writes:
> Some extra observations.
>
> I took directory with successful GCL build
> which was made before binutils upgrade (bunitils 2.14.90.0.6),
> and tried rebuild it but not from very beginning but
> starting with pcl. In other words I use old saved_gcl
> to build pcl and finally saved_ansi_gcl.
> Build succeeded. So problem lies already in saved_gcl
> not in later compile/link stages as it may seems at first.
>
> I've checked that lockbfd and custreloc GCL builds
> work to me as expected - locbfd is linked with
> locally compiled libbfd.a/libiberty.a and custreloc
> without libbfd/libiberty at all.
> But in spite of this all these types of GCL ANSI build -
> statsysbfd, locbfd, custreloc fail to me exactly
> at the same place if I use binutils 2.14.90.0.8.
>
> I'd be glad if someone with binutils 2.14.90.0.8 could
> confirm the problem. Unfortunately it seems that this
> binutils version is available only for Fedora 2 beta.
> I don't have this distro near at hand.
> The latest binutils in Debian testing/unstable are
> 2.14.90.0.7.
>
> I'm going to test the problem with --enable-debug
> but I'm not sure how to combine make build
> and gdb. Any ideas?
>
All of the above points to some sort of C miscompilation. The loading
code is obviously not effected given your results with custreloc. Can
you identify which specific files involved in the upgrade break the
build? I.e., I would be flabbergasted if the mere copying of
/usr/lib/libbfd.a into place on an old system would break the build.
Does your distribution separate the binutils into runtime and -dev
packages like on Debian? If so, can you isolate which package is the
culprit? When testing with custreloc or locbfd, you don't need the
-dev installed. Have other header files on your system changed in the
upgrade? I take it gcc itself has not. My bet is on the headers.
When Debian unstable gets .8, I'll be happy to try and
reproduce/debug.
Take care,
> Best wishes,
>
> --
> Vadim V. Zhytnikov
>
> <address@hidden>
> <address@hidden>
>
>
>
>
--
Camm Maguire address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
- [Gcl-devel] GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8, Vadim V. Zhytnikov, 2004/02/19
- [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8, Camm Maguire, 2004/02/19
- [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8, Vadim V. Zhytnikov, 2004/02/19
- [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8, Camm Maguire, 2004/02/20
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8, Vadim V. Zhytnikov, 2004/02/21
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8,
Camm Maguire <=
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8, Vadim V. Zhytnikov, 2004/02/24
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8, Camm Maguire, 2004/02/24
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8, Vadim V. Zhytnikov, 2004/02/24
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8, Vadim V. Zhytnikov, 2004/02/25
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8, Camm Maguire, 2004/02/25