http demo in network-demos

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 07:09, Jay Monkman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 06:47:23AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > All this sounds like code rott.
> 
> That's what I'd guess, but I thought the demos were built for each
> snapshot.
These are Joel's babes ;)

> > Which gcc are you using? Vanilla gcc-3.x probably won't work.
> 
> I'm using the gcc-3.2.3 RPM from ftp.rtems.com.
> 
> > Do the tests/samples compile? If yes, comparing the calls to gcc there
> > and in your case probably will help.
> 
> They work fine. As far as I can tell, nothing else uses objcopy to
> generate a linkable object (.o).
I am pretty sure, we've had this issue before :(

May-be this helps:

Some experiments with binutils-2.13.2.1 and binutils-2.14:

# touch test.c
# arm-rtems4.7-gcc -o test.o -c test.c

# arm-rtems4.7-objcopy -I binary -O elf32-littlearm test.o test1.o

No warning (arm-rtems4.7-objcopy = binutils-2.14)

# arm-rtems4.6-objcopy -I binary -O elf32-littlearm test.o test1.o
arm-rtems4.6-objcopy: Warning: Output file cannot represent architecture UNKNOWN!

The same warning as you see it (arm-rtems4.6-objcopy = binutils-2.13.2.1)

Now explicitly setting the architecture:
# arm-rtems4.6-objcopy -I binary -B arm -O elf32-littlearm test.o test1.o
No warning!

I conclude from this, 
* you might have touched a bug/deficiency/issue in binutils-2.13.2.1
that seems to be fixed in binutils-2.14.
* explicitly setting the -B <arch> argument in calls to objcopy seems to
be a work-around, however I don't know which <arch> is expected in your
case :(

Ralf