[gccsdk] Packaging compiler - was Autobuilder libraries

John Tytgat John.Tytgat at aaug.net
Fri Jan 4 14:34:04 PST 2008

In message <477E6F3B.7050909 at chocky.org>
          Peter Naulls <peter at chocky.org> wrote:

> alan buckley wrote:
> > 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 agree that static linking is the best choice to make for packaging
GCCSDK 4.1 compiled binaries right now.  But put those in 'testing' state.
And it would indeed also be best to use elf2aif on those binaries which
will give you an Absolute binary not requiring any ELF loader at runtime.

IMHO we still need to build up real life experience with shared libraries
based on the ones found in Autobuilder.  I.e. a running FF using shared
libraries will tell us if we got this stuff right or that it requires some
more work.

> [...]
> > 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.

No, please stick with the v1.10 SharedUnixLibrary.  The pre-release 1
of GCCSDK 4.1 contained v1.11 but canonicalisation fix I did seems to have
consequences which I don't like. I still need to come back on this point

Something slightly else: I'm starting having doubts about uploading the
packages to RiscPkg site and I'm not sure anymore of the advantages doing
that instead of making them available ourselves via riscos.info. It feels
like a possible single point of failure beyond our control.

John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home                                 BASS
John.Tytgat at aaug.net                             ARM powered, RISC OS driven

More information about the gcc mailing list