| 1 |
On 11/17/08, Ahmed Ammar <b33fc0d3@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 13:37 +0100, Martin Guy wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Where do you find "the openembedded ones"? I have looked for them but not found. |
| 4 |
> > Do you know how to find them without setting up a whole OE build environment? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> They used to have their repository available for online viewing but as |
| 7 |
> far as i can see it's been removed. Maybe too many people grabbing what |
| 8 |
> they wanted via http. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > Of the two, 4.1.2 requires less memory to build it and to compile |
| 11 |
> > things, compiles things faster and seems to produce smaller faster |
| 12 |
> > code. |
| 13 |
oops, smaller, but not faster, though the difference is just a few % |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> The 4.2.4 patches that i was using as i said probably produced a broken |
| 16 |
> tool-chain so i moved back to 4.1.2 as you recommended. |
| 17 |
Yes, none of the others produced working executables as is. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I am pleased to hear that you are now being financed to continue where |
| 20 |
> others have left off as getting around certain bugs is very annoying |
| 21 |
> (broken unwind support) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
There is support called arm-crunch-unwind.patch in the later tarballs |
| 24 |
that is independent of the other patches and it should apply OK to the |
| 25 |
earlier GCC versions too. |
| 26 |
You can see it my most recent complete set under |
| 27 |
http://martinwguy.co.uk/martin/crunch/gcc-4.3.2-patches |
| 28 |
though this isn't prodution quality (sometimes Internal Compiler Errors) |
| 29 |
If you'd like to try adding that patch and running some tests with |
| 30 |
unwinds, I'd be glad to hear of your results . |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
M |
Archives