> -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Backx [mailto:danny.ba...@scarlet.be] > Cc: cegcc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Cegcc-devel] Porting cegcc changes to latest version of cegcc > > On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 19:41 -0400, Pavel Pavlov wrote: > > I'm thinking to update my version of cegcc to latest version of gcc. It > > look as > the project is almost sleeping now. > > That's because my wife and daughter "stole" my two devices in exchange for > me being "allowed" to buy an Android phone. > > > So, I'd like to try to take changes made in cegcc into some latest release > > of > binutils and gcc. What's the recommended way to do it?.. > > Talk to the relevant mailing list. > > > I already tried to compare, but the differences are HUGE so I can't know > myself what fixes I'll need to apply to gcc. > > Can you maybe tell me what version of gcc and binutil (svn revision) was > initially taken as a base for cegcc, so that I could make a diff and apply it > to > latest version of gcc/binutils? > > See src/VERSIONS .
After checking some files I noticed that VERSIONS file and checked out octorer 17 2009 version of binutils. I merged all the changes into latest version of binutils. Also, I noticed that versions of binutils in cegcc svn has some strange changes, which look to me more likely like incorrect merge from previous versions of binutils. Plus, there are a bunch of files that simply do not exist in that 0ct17,2009 version of binutils. The reason I wanted to merge binutils is because I have that strange problem that dlls produced with cegcc-4.4.0; dlls are almost twice bigger compared to builds with cegcc 4.1.0 (because half of the produced dll is filled with zeros). I checked object files that go into the dll and all of them are normal and have no zeros, but the final dll is full of shi...., I mean zeros. So, it looked as if it was a linker problem and the linker is part of binutils package. I thought that if I take latest binutils I'll probably get it fixed. Still, after I merged changes into latest binutils I got the same results and the binaries produced are almost bitexact (at least that's a good sign that I didn't screw up with the merge). > > I can give you and other interested parties write access to the cegcc svn if > you like. > If I knew anything about gcc internals and all these weird scripts that it uses, I'd took write access to svn, but compiler and everything related to it is something that I have zero knowledge about. I wouldn't even be sure to commit my merge because I can't even approve my changes, I merely compared folders of oct17,2009 binutils with binutils folder from gcc, and manually applied the same change to the latest version of binutils. All my changes would still need to be checked by others who have knowledge of gcc or cegcc changes. I can post a diff that I made to binutils svn if it's of any value to the project. I'm thinking to try to do the same task with gcc 4.4.5 on weekend when I have some more free time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Cegcc-devel mailing list Cegcc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
