[gccsdk] Packaging compiler - was Autobuilder libraries

Peter Naulls peter at chocky.org
Fri Jan 4 09:39:07 PST 2008


alan buckley wrote:
>> On  Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:58:21 -0800 Peter Naulls wrote:
>>

>> What we still don't have, is someone to try the GCC 4.1 build on Cygwin.
>> I haven't had a chance to do this yet, but I'm sure we can easily work
>> through the issues if someone else wants to try.
>>
> 
> Does this mean that I should be switching to GCC4.1 to build the autobuilder
> website?

It means that someone needs to try it, so we can actually make progress 
on fixing any problems, if there are any.

> My initial thought was that I should stick to the last released compiler. But
> it sounds as if this is becoming less pratical as we move to GCC4.1.

This is likely.

> If I should move to GCC4.1 can someone clear up a few points for me.
> 1. Is the autobuilder set to produce AOF applications with GCC4.1?
> 2. Does the autobuilder produce ELF or AOF libraries with GCC4.1?
> 3. If I should be shipping ELF apps/libraries has there been a
> decision on how to ship the ELF loader and shared libraries?

GCC 4.1 is a complete move away from AOF.  None of the toolchain
produces or understands AOF or AOF-style assembler.  The single
exception is the ELF executable to AOF converter which will work
for static binaries.  This could be used as an interim during
the final packaging step, until the shared library situation is
perhaps more mature.  That is, we should probably stick to
static binaries just for the moment.  This is easy in the
current framework.

> I will need to create packages to install them before
> I can package up any ELF program.

I don't know that there's anything additional (apart from minor
toolchain differences) than what you're doing already.  Almost
everything you've done is applicable.  One exception is SDL
which requires some RISC OS-specific gas format assembly
(converted from the AOF version).

> 4. I assume I would need to create a temporary package for the latest
> SharedUnixLibrary until the RiscPkg site catches up. Is this stable now?

I don't know the exact versioning of the top of my head, but if the
current UnixLib requires this, then I don't see any problem.







More information about the gcc mailing list