Vaugha Brewchuk writes:
> I also wonder whether perhaps a different gcc-4 version is a better
> starting point for the NeXT?
Support for m68k-*-nextstep* has been removed 10 years ago.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5
On 2012-05-17, at 11:47 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Vaugha Brewchuk dixit:
>
>> The biggest challenge on the NeXT is that the libraries are approx. 20
>> years old. What is there of POSIX, is very broken, and many of the
>> standard c library functions are completely obsolete. So even once a
>>
On 2012-05-17, at 11:33 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Vaugha Brewchuk dixit:
>
>> it and see what happens. Unfortunately I will not know for at least 12
>> hours what the outcome is :-). Yes, just the genattrtab takes over 9.5
>> hours to execute on a 33 MHz 68040. It is an exercise in patience a
On 2012-05-18, at 4:39 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Vaugha Brewchuk writes:
>
>> I also wonder whether perhaps a different gcc-4 version is a better
>> starting point for the NeXT?
>
> Support for m68k-*-nextstep* has been removed 10 years ago.
Indeed, gcc-3.2.3 was the last version with m68k-
On 18/05/2012 02:05, Vaugha Brewchuk wrote:
../../../../src/gcc-4.6.3-NS-1/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-pe.h:271:1: internal
compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2109
This bug looks similar to that one:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50882
There are a lot of open bugs in GCC :-(
I
Vaugha Brewchuk dixit:
>> that’s on a fast emulated Atari… makes me wish for one of these
>> several 100 MHz Coldfires with MMU, except that effort to make
>> the Debian/m68k port usable on both seems not have gone far yet.
>
>Time for the FireBee? :-)
Nope, that’s MMU-less (IIRC).
>Thank you fo
On 18/05/2012 20:00, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Time for the FireBee? :-)
Nope, that’s MMU-less (IIRC).
Fortunately, you are wrong :-)
The facts:
1) The FireBee features a ColdFire MCF5474 which embeds a ColdFire V4e core,
an FPU, an MMU, and much more. No trouble with the hardware.
2) The L
Vincent Rivi�re dixit:
> 1) The FireBee features a ColdFire MCF5474 which embeds a ColdFire V4e core,
> an
> FPU, an MMU, and much more. No trouble with the hardware.
Aah, good.
> 2) The Linux kernel has already been ported to the FireBee. Both the MMUless
> ucLinux, *and* the full MMU Linux wi
On 18/05/2012 21:26, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Except I’m wondering if FreeMiNT (userspace) will get shared libraries
some day. It would help Debian GNU/MiNT ☺
On FreeMiNT, there is shared library support through the SLB mechanism (and
also LDG, another one). Both are very few used. I'm not sure
Dixi quod…
>>I’ll do that now: I’ve applied all our latest m68k patches
>>to the gcj-4.6 source tree and will rebuild that (takes about
>>3-4 days on my fastest VMs) and upload that to unreleased,
>>then binNMU ecj against that (it was previously built by
>>gcj-4.4).
>
>This appears to have fixed
On Fri, 18 May 2012, Vincent Rivi?re wrote:
> On 18/05/2012 21:26, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
...
> > That would need to be addressed during porting, sure. We basically
> > need a userspace CPU switch between: - 68020+ or CF, no distinguishing
> > needed (generic mode)
>
> Henk Robbers did that
Finn Thain dixit:
>Has anyone benchmarked those binaries (running on the hybrid platform)
>against native 68020 and Coldfire binaries (running on their respective
>native platforms)?
Since I’ve seen an strace and been explained what SYS_333 is
I believe benchmarks of modern-eglibc m68k are beyo
On Sat, 19 May 2012, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Finn Thain dixit:
>
> >Has anyone benchmarked those binaries (running on the hybrid platform)
> >against native 68020 and Coldfire binaries (running on their respective
> >native platforms)?
>
> Since I?ve seen an strace and been explained what SY
13 matches
Mail list logo
