gcl-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8


From: Camm Maguire
Subject: Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL problems with binutils 2.14.90.0.8
Date: 23 Feb 2004 15:40:00 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

Greetings!  Thanks for these notes, Vadim!

"Vadim V. Zhytnikov" <address@hidden> writes:

> Some extra observations.
> 
> I took directory with successful GCL build
> which was made before binutils upgrade (bunitils 2.14.90.0.6),
> and tried rebuild it but not from very beginning but
> starting with pcl. In other words I use old saved_gcl
> to build pcl and finally saved_ansi_gcl.
> Build succeeded.  So problem lies already in saved_gcl
> not in later compile/link stages as it may seems at first.
> 
> I've checked that lockbfd and custreloc GCL builds
> work to me as expected - locbfd is linked with
> locally compiled libbfd.a/libiberty.a and custreloc
> without libbfd/libiberty at all.
> But in spite of this all these types of GCL ANSI build -
> statsysbfd, locbfd, custreloc fail to me exactly
> at the same place if I use binutils 2.14.90.0.8.
> 
> I'd be glad if someone with binutils 2.14.90.0.8 could
> confirm the problem.  Unfortunately it seems that this
> binutils version is available only for Fedora 2 beta.
> I don't have this distro near at hand.
> The latest binutils in Debian testing/unstable are
> 2.14.90.0.7.
> 
> I'm going to test the problem with --enable-debug
> but I'm not sure how to combine make build
> and gdb. Any ideas?
> 

All of the above points to some sort of C miscompilation.  The loading
code is obviously not effected given your results with custreloc.  Can
you identify which specific files involved in the upgrade break the
build?  I.e., I would be flabbergasted if the mere copying of
/usr/lib/libbfd.a into place on an old system would break the build.
Does your distribution separate the binutils into runtime and -dev
packages like on Debian?  If so, can you isolate which package is the
culprit?  When testing with custreloc or locbfd, you don't need the
-dev installed.  Have other header files on your system changed in the
upgrade?  I take it gcc itself has not.  My bet is on the headers.

When Debian unstable gets .8, I'll be happy to try and
reproduce/debug. 

Take care,

> Best wishes,
> 
> -- 
>       Vadim V. Zhytnikov
> 
>        <address@hidden>
>       <address@hidden>
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]