<offlist> Re: C compiler cannot create executables

Joel Sherrill joel.sherrill at oarcorp.com
Tue Apr 3 11:26:32 UTC 2007


OK.  I have a test build sweep going now.  If it looks OK when it
finishes then I will start the tarball spin.

Hopefully it will improve some of the reported issues.

--joel

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 12:44 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>   
>> Ralf... do you still feel like 4.7.1 is justified based on this thread?
>>     
> Now that you sent this to the list, let me reply to the list.
>
> Yes, I still think so, because
>
> * the RTEMS bug wrt. CFLAGS handling in tools/ will hit all users of
> pc386-based BSPs (which I assume to be one of the most popular BSPs to
> getting started) on non-i386 hosts (e.g. on x86_64-hosts).
>
> * the other issues the OP reports, partially seem to originate from
> Ubuntu issues. However, due to lack of Ubuntu installations, I can't
> verify. So far, I am having doubts on some of the issues he reports, but
> also doubt, it's RTEMS who is to blame.
>
> Releasing a 4.7.1 with the "fix" applied should work around both of
> these issues and will avoid having to answer these questions the next
> time.
>
> One issue not having been fixed is building the posix BSP on x86_64.
>
> AFAICT, so far, the POSIX-BSP doesn't support x86_64 cpus nor does
> RTEMS's configuration gracefully handle (e.g. reject) such
> build-environments.
>
> I.e. at the moment, building the posix BSP on x86_64/amd64 systems,
> probably would require a multilib'ed gcc (applicable e.g. on RH/Fedora
> based distros) or i386 gcc installed in parallel to an i86_64/amd64-gcc
> (I could be wrong, but AFAIK, this is how many Debian-based distros
> package GCC).
>
>   
>> Just checking.
>>     
>
>   
>>>> Thus I did away with my 64bit Ubuntu (no negative impact to me)
>>>> and went 'backwards' with 32bit Ubuntu. The problem seems to be
>>>> more of a gcc issue.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Well, there are at least two issues I am aware about.
>>>
>>> 1. there is a bug in rtems-4.7.1
>>>       
>
> Ugly typo, this should have been: rtems-4.7.0
>
> The rtems-4.7.0.tar-ball contains the bug. It is supposed to be fixed on
> rtems-4-7-branch and rtems-cvs-HEAD/rtems-4.8.
>
> Ralf
>
>
>   




More information about the users mailing list