What is "no" application? nm?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 19:36 +0300, Leon Pollak wrote:
> On Monday, 31 בMarch 2008, you wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 19:06 +0300, Leon Pollak wrote:
> > > Ralf,
> > > Thank you for reply, but I am affraid that the issue is a bit different:
> > >
> > > I checked - powerpc-rtems-nm IS in the path.
> > I guess you are not using our standard tools? We do not ship
> > powerpc-rtems-nm, we ship powerpc-rtems4.8-nm.
> >
> > BTW: There are good reasons to do so - I strongly recommend against
> > using "cpu-rtems" as target-name. It doesn't make much of a difference
> > to binutils, but there are substantial differences in newlib.
> Actually, I do use standard tools, just make links to them with the names 
> without "4.8" in the same directory. This way I can use my projects without 
> changing them with different versions.
Hmm? I don't understand this step.

You can install the standard toolchains in parallel, and switch between
version by using separate VPATH builds.

e.g. I have 
PATH=/opt/rtems-4.9/bin:/opt/rtems-4.8/bin:/opt/rtems-4.7/bin:$PATH

and am building in a way similar to this:
when wanting to test for "rtems-version compatibility"

mkdir build4.8
cd build4.8
/<sourcedir>/configure --target=powerpc-rtems4.8
make
...

mkdir build4.9
cd build4.9
/<sourcedir>/configure --target=powerpc-rtems4.9
make
...

when wanting to test for "rtems-version compatibility"


> > >  And it does not work. But if I
> > > add the link in the same directory where the powerpc-rtems-nm resides to
> > > itself and call it 'no', everything works fine till the end!
> >
> > Don't do that - You are shooting yourself into the foot.
> I did it only for testing.
Glad to hear this ;)

> > Second thought: You seem to be using a proprietary BSP, probably one
> > with a pre-rtems4.8 history.
> Yes!!!
> Mine is modified mpc8260ads.
> Where can I read about the required changes to adapt mine to 4.8 requirements?
> Sorry
> 
> > Do other (opensource) BSPs build for you?
> Did not tried. But immediately will.
> Thanks again. Just, please, where to read about the differences to 4.8?
Hmm, I am not aware about any such document.

4.8 is incompatible to 4.7 at so many places, I even can't remember what
all has changed.

I one thing I recall, is the *.cfgs having undergone a major slimfest
(which is not unlikely to be the cause of your issue) and Joel's <rant>
Makefile freakments having further rotten, instead of finally having
been removed and abandoned</rant>

> I already see several while debugging (crashes on exception initializing, 
> etc...)
That's likely something completely different.

Ralf