gcc -x bug in 2.95.3

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 19, 2001, mbuna <mbuna@undernet.org> wrote:

> Huh? I thought gcc was integrated?

The compiler (GCC) and the assembler (part of binutils) are totally
different packages.

> This is not gcc which make the assembly?

GCC outputs assembly code and runs the assembler to generate object
files, then the linker to link them into shared libraries and
executables.

> I'm just making some observations: gcc 2.95.2 runs well and
> 2.95.3 cannot be used.

It may be a bug in GCC 2.95.3, in that it generates invalid
instructions for this particular processor.  Or it may be that your
copy of GCC 2.95.2 had been modified to emit instructions for some
particular assembler.  I don't know, I have little knowledge of m68k
and NetBSD.

> How should I upgrade an assembler for a processor (MC68040) which is
> about 10 years old? :)

Get GNU binutils 2.11.

> Anyway, you are a red hat developer, does "porting" make any sense for
> you ? ;P~

Sure.  I'm one of the maintainers of autoconf, automake and libtool,
that are all about writing portable software.  And I work for Red Hat
in the GCC development group, that is certainly not Red Hat
Linux/x86-centered.  But even folks that are Red Hat Linux-centered
still have a lot of porting to worry about, since Red Hat Linux
officially supports 3 totally different series of microprocessors, and
is reported to run on 2 other series.  So, yes, I do care a lot about
porting :-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me