Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Joel Sherrill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexandre Pereira Nunes wrote:
> Also regarding ARM, PR31849
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31849
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31849>) is a show stopper,
> at least for some embedded bare metal targets, i.e. arm-elf and
> arm-none-eabi.
>
> Until size optimization at least matches gcc 4.2, gcc 4.3 will have very
> limited audience there. I'm not aware of gcc internals in order to help
> with a fix, but I'm available to help testing, should anyone requires that.
>
>
The m68k/coldfire is suffering from this regression the
RTEMS community really would like to see resolved.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35088
I just emailed everyone who touched the m68k port since
last summer a charity appeal. :-D
No m86k triple is primary or secondary target, so this is not going to
block the release.
But there was plenty of time for the rtems/m68k people to look at problems with
their port.
True enough but this wasn't broken by anything specific
to RTEMS. It is just a regression that someone caused
and if they worked on m68k, it is worth a look. Technical
pride has to play a place somehow. I never said it was
worth stopping a release for.
There are reports on the m68k which look good for 4.1
and 4.2 releases. Looking at the long list of patches
Debian is using makes be wonder if it is already fixed
but not in the SVN tree.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg00700.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg00073.html
lists this patch. I know it is against 4.1 but I wonder if it is the fix.
m68k-dwarf3:
emit correct dwarf info for cfa offset and register with -fomit-frame-pointer
I don't see any m68k Debian tests against the trunk. Only 4.1
and 4.2 which to their credit are recent and frequent.
--joel
Richard.
