This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: boehm-gc alpha*-*-freebsd* configuration patch
- From: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
- To: rth at redhat dot com
- Cc: java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:06:49 -0600 (CST)
- Subject: Re: boehm-gc alpha*-*-freebsd* configuration patch
- References: <200203220248.g2M2mTg50399@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> <20020321185632.C6772@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: rittle at labs dot mot dot com
In article <20020321185632.C6772@redhat.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 08:48:29PM -0600, Loren James Rittle wrote:
>> + /* Handle unmapped hole alpha*-*-freebsd[45]* puts between etext and edata. */
>> + extern char etext;
>> + extern char edata;
>> + extern char end;
>> + # define NEED_FIND_LIMIT
>> + # define DATASTART ((ptr_t)(&etext))
>> + # define DATAEND (GC_find_limit (DATASTART, TRUE))
>> + # define DATASTART2 ((ptr_t)(&edata))
>> + # define DATAEND2 ((ptr_t)(&end))
> This isn't going to work with new binutils. GCC will assume these
> are in .sdata/.sbss. Instead do
> extern char etext[];
> extern char edata[];
> extern char end[];
As usually, thanks for the quick review. I will make the change you
suggest ASAP. BTW, I tested with FSF binutils 2.12.X taken a month
ago. How recent a binutils do I need to see this issue?
I assume that this change will affect all architectures with the new
binutils? I.e. I should update all such references in that
configuration file? You wouldn't believe how many times variations of
those lines are declared.
Regards,
Loren