This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jim Wilson <wilson at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 06:27:12 -0500
- Subject: Re: i960-elf
- Organization: OAR Corporation
- Reply-to: joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com
I acctually didn't do a reply-all and missed replying to the list.
So Jim ignore the private one.
Jim Wilson wrote:
> I figured out why the i960-elf build doesn't work. It is because there is no
> i960-elf support in gcc. There is i960-elf support in binutils and gdb, but
> none in gcc.
<sigh> That explains a lot.
> i960-elf appears to work in gcc because there is a i960-*-* target, but that
> is really a misnamed i960-bout target. You get ELF object files because
> binutils knows about i960-elf, but the code that gcc is emitting is not right
> for an ELF target. It is using the wrong debug info format. It is using
> the wrong method for static constructors/destructors. It is using the wrong
> EH mechanism. Etc. And of course the problem that stops the build, it
> doesn't support named sections which is needed for section attributes.
> Fixing this means adding a real i960-elf target, and I think that is beyond
> what can be reasonably expected of me.
It is certainly way beyond what I thought I was reporting. I thought I
reporting problems in a target that existed and was supposed to work.
I had no intention of someone implementing a target.
> There are a few things I'd be willing to do. I could add an i960-elf target
> that prints an error message at configure or build time. I could rename
> the misnamed i960-*-* target so that we get a configure error for an
> unsupported target. I could add a i960-elfbroken target that works like
> the current one but has named section support so that the build will complete.
> This should still work with binutils and gdb since they check for i960-elf*.
I think getting a configure error for unsupported target is the
appropriate thing to do.
I have no explicit need for i960-elf. I started building it because
the RTEMS community wanted to generally move to ELF across all targets
possible. If the target appeared to be mature (m68k-elf i386-elf) we
dropped using the coff target. Otherwise we continued to use it.
The sh and i960 were the last targets I saw hope in moving to elf.
The sh looks like it will eventually happen but now I know the i960
just won't any time soon.
> Or we could just stop trying to build i960-elf.
This is reasonable and implementing it should be documented on the
gcc projects list as well.
I go with Jim's proposal to ...
+ give a configure error for i960-elf
+ add implementing i960-elf to the gcc projects list
+ close all gcc PRs that are only for i960-elf
How does that sound Jim?
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985