FW: GCC assembler errors on all Intellistore machines (Urgent)
Jithendra Madala
madala@mips.com
Fri Jul 20 01:18:00 GMT 2007
Hi,
It looks like a gcc/3.3.6 issue. I download and tried gcc/3.4.6
(32bit) and it works fine. Thanks for your help
Jithendra
Jithendra Madala wrote:
> Hello Kai
> Actually the build was on a x86_64 machine and the uname info is
>
> uname -a
> Linux mipscs471 2.6.9-55.ELsmp #1 SMP Wed May 2 14:04:42 EDT 2007
> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
> I tried -m32 and that didn't work. Is it a gcc/3.3.6 issue or generic
> to all gcc versions including gcc/4.*?
>
> gcc -DDEBUG -D_DEBUG -DXA_DEBUG=1 -DMTI_Model64 -DMIPS_SIM_TYPE_vcs
> -Wall -Wno-unused -g2 -O0
> -I/mips/proj/tools/vcs/vcs2006.06-SP1-4/include -I/usr/local/include
> -Iinclude -I../Devices/include -I../EJTAP/include -I../MIPSInt/include
> -I../Systems/Topaz1pSystem/include -m32 -c -o assert.o src/assert.c
> /usr/tmp/ccriboBB.s: Assembler messages:
> /usr/tmp/ccriboBB.s:45: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> /usr/tmp/ccriboBB.s:100: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> /usr/tmp/ccriboBB.s:150: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> /usr/tmp/ccriboBB.s:235: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `jmp'
>
> Thanks
>
> Kai Ruottu wrote:
>
>> Zeki Yasar wrote:
>>
>>> Can you please read below and provide us with some insight on how we
>>> could modify our process to assemble on a 64bit platform?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have read this but didn't see much info about what those
>> 'Intellistore machines' where the problem happens are :-(
>>
>>> From: Jithendra Madala [mailto:madala@mips.com]
>>> We usually build our design in 32bit mode (using 32bit versions of
>>> tools and gcc/3.3.6) even on a 64bit machine by default. Only if
>>> required we build in 64bit mode using 64bit version of tools including
>>> gcc (gcc64/3.3.2).
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There are quite many "64-bit" architectures, maybe 'mips.com' uses
>> those 'mips64' based ones?
>>
>>>> I see a lot of search results for people having similar issues on
>>>> x86_64, if x86 is specified it looks like its trying it compile in
>>>> some i32 assembly optimizations that don't work on x86_64.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So "similar" things are happening with the 64-bit AMD and Intel CPU
>> based machines....
>>
>>>> madala@mipscs177: 57 uname -a
>>>> Linux mipscs177 2.6.9-42.ELsmp #1 SMP Wed Jul 12 23:27:17 EDT 2006
>>>> i686
>>>> i686 i386 GNU/Linux
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This then is a 32-bit x86 CPU-based machine....
>>
>>>>> I get assembler errors (see below) when I do a simple gcc build. It
>>>>> happens only on Intellistore machines. I tried atleast 6 machines
>>>>> and on
>>>>> all of them gave the same error message. When I run on Rackables
>>>>> or my
>>>>> desktop the compilation goes fine. I need immediate help on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc -DDEBUG -D_DEBUG -DXA_DEBUG=1 -DMTI_Model64 -DMIPS_SIM_TYPE_vcs
>>>>> -Wall -Wno-unused -g2 -O0
>>>>> -I/mips/proj/tools/vcs/vcs2006.06-SP1-4/include -I/usr/local/include
>>>>> -Iinclude -I../Devices/include -I../EJTAP/include
>>>>> -I../MIPSInt/include
>>>>> -I../Systems/Topaz1pSystem/include -c -o assert.o src/assert.c
>>>>> /usr/tmp/ccEITBbp.s: Assembler messages:
>>>>> /usr/tmp/ccEITBbp.s:45: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
>>>>> /usr/tmp/ccEITBbp.s:100: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
>>>>> /usr/tmp/ccEITBbp.s:150: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
>>>>> /usr/tmp/ccEITBbp.s:235: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `jmp'
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> In those x86_64 cases the reasons were obvious: There were 32-bit
>> 'inline asm' instructions embedded
>> into those C programs, so the programs were "x86 specific" and
>> compiling them for instance for 'x86_64'
>> of course failed. Just as well they would have failed if trying to
>> compile them for PPC, MIPS, ia64, ARM
>> etc. other CPU based machines...
>>
>> The program in question here might be something for some
>> MIPS-simulator ("MIPS_SIM_TYPE_vcs")
>> and it being optimized for some x86-based machine which has a
>> TNT2-based graphics card (MTI Model64)...
>>
>> Here the given info was limited below all the usual required
>> minimum? Like :
>>
>> - on what kind of machine the problem happens (What CPU?)
>>
>> - can the GCC in question create also 32-bit code? (Every GCC for
>> x86_64 as default should do this with
>> the '-m32' option for x86 code production)
>>
>> If those "Intellistore" machines are x86_64 ones and they aren't
>> provided only with "brain damaged" GCCs
>> which can only produce 64-bit code, then just using '-m32' in the
>> compile options would cause code for the
>> x86 mode being produced ! Quoting the gcc-3.3.6 manual :
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3.6/gcc/i386-and-x86_002d64-Options.html#i386-and-x86_002d64-Options
>>
>>
>> ----------------- clip ------------------------------------
>> These `-m' switches are supported in addition to the above on AMD
>> x86-64 processors in 64-bit environments.
>>
>> |-m32|
>> |-m64|
>> Generate code for a 32-bit or 64-bit environment. The 32-bit
>> environment sets int, long and pointer to 32 bits and generates code
>> that runs on any i386 system. The 64-bit environment sets int to 32
>> bits and long and pointer to 64 bits and generates code for AMD's
>> x86-64 architecture. ----------------- clip
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> My thought is that one cannot mix 64-bit and 32-bit pieces in x86_64
>> just like with 'arm' (32-bit) and 'thumb' (16-bit)
>> in ARM. So the produced code must be either purely x86_64 or x86
>> code for each module for the executable....
>>
>>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Jithendra Madala |
| Sr.Manager Design Verification |
| MIPS Technologies work : (650) 567 5068 |
| 1225 Charleston Road mobile : (408) 813 2435 |
/)| Mountain View CA 94043-1353 email : madala@mips.com |(\
/ )| http://www.mips.com |( \
( (|---------------------------------------------------------|) )
((( \ \ / _) ( \ / / )))
(\\\ \ \_/ / \ \_/ / ///)
\ / \ /
\ _/ \_ /
/ / \ \
/ / \ \
More information about the Gcc-help
mailing list