[gccsdk] Packaging compiler - was Autobuilder libraries

alan buckley alan_baa at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 8 02:37:19 PST 2008

> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 23:34:04 +0100 John Tytgat wrote:
> In message 
> Peter Naulls  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.

Thanks for the explanation. I now understand that GCCSDK 4.1 just
produces ELF format binaries and libraries.

I've also seen the work Peter has done to convert the final ELF
executables to an absolute binary in the autobuilder to produce
these for now.

>> [...]
>>> 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

I would rather stick to the currently shipped version as well. I was just
checking if there was something in v1.11 that meant programs compiled
with GCCSDK4.1 needed it to run.

> btw.
> 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.

I can see why it would be easier to make them all available via riscos.info,
so if that is what you would prefer I'm happy to go along with it.

The build-website script is a wrapper around programs that can work
with any directory so it should be relatively straight forward to modify
it to build other package directories.

What other package list are we going to add?
Currently we have autobuilt which is intended for direct output from
the autobuilder.
I'm not sure what others we want - unstable, testing, stable? Any

Also how do we know when to copy something from one list to another?

I think this thread has lead to the conclusion that I should be moving
over to the GCCSDK4.1 soon to create the packaging site.

Before I do that it may be worth making a copy of the existing site
to another package list. If so which one unstable, testing ...?

I assume the AOF versions of the libraries will all need to be replaced
with ELF versions. Is there any benefit in keeping the AOF versions


Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox. 

More information about the gcc mailing list