From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267793AbUG3TBi (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:01:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267789AbUG3TBi (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:01:38 -0400 Received: from vsmtp14.tin.it ([212.216.176.118]:36347 "EHLO vsmtp14.tin.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267788AbUG3TAa (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:00:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:59:01 +0200 From: Giuliano Pochini To: Tom Rini Cc: kumar.gala@freescale.com, tnt@246tNt.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, olh@suse.de, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][PPC32] Makefile cleanups and gcc-3.4+binutils-2.14 c Message-Id: <20040730205901.4d4181f4.pochini@shiny.it> In-Reply-To: <20040729144347.GE16468@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20040728220733.GA16468@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040729144347.GE16468@smtp.west.cox.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 07:43:47 -0700 Tom Rini wrote: > > I had no time to do a lot of testing, but it seems that binutils 2.15 + > > gcc 3.3.3 is a bad one too. I didn't try to compile the kernel (which > > may also break), but at least I couldn't compile gcc 3.4.1 with the > > above combination. It seems that as doesn't get the -mxxx parameter > > required to compile altivec stuff. Hacking the Makefile to make it > > pass -Wa,-m7455 helped a little, but it eventually failed in another > > weird way. I hadn't time to investigate further, sorry. > > Stock gcc-3.3.3 or from the hammer branch ? Stock. > There is, I think, a second > problem that was left out. The problem with gcc-3.4 + binutils-2.14 is > that -many gets passed, which zeros out previous flags. -many is fine > in binutils-2.15 (and 2.13 and 2.12 and 2.12.1 it seems), but 2.15 does > require -maltivec to be passed in order to handle altivec instructions. > Getting this right was part of the cleanup that conflicted with the > mpc52xx changes (Andrew: trying to take care of getting this into Linus' > tree now). Ah, ok, this is useful to know. Btw, I compiled linux 2.6.7 with gcc 3.4.1 and binutils 2.15 without problems. -- Giuliano.