This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Binutil compatibility


> From: Sava Zxivanovich <sava.zxivanovich@crsltd.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:05:25 -0000
> 
> Hi.
> 
> I am working with PowerPC 401 D2 - in deed PLX IOP480.
> 
> I have installed GCC chain that uses binutil 2.9.1, gcc 2.95.2 for
> powerpc-elf. Due to fact that as in that version do not support one operand
> - tlbwe, I have to upgrade to one I hope does support - 2.10.1. I would not
> like to use 2.11, I had quit a bad time with it (and GCC 3.0.1).

What problems did you have with 2.11?

> My question is if binutil 2.10 does support operand tlwbe (PowerPC Embedded
> Environment, PowerPC 401D2), would there be any problem if I configure
> binutils as ppc-eabi (I suppose yes, I would like just to check that) and
> would it be any problem with gcc 2.95.2 (I suppose not,but you never know).

I think it might be better if I explained some stuff first, to avoid
confusion.

Firstly, ppc-elf and ppc-eabi are both ELF.  The difference is that
the first uses the SVR4 ABI, the other uses the EABI by default.  You
can switch between ABIs in GCC by writing -meabi or -mno-eabi.  The
binutils contain support for both, in fact the same binutils are used
for both.  GCC looks for the binutils, though, by referencing the
precise target name it was configured for; even 'ppc-eabi' is
different from 'powerpc-eabi' and both are different from
'powerpc-unknown-eabi', even though they all generate the exact same
code.

As for 'tlbwe', there seem to be two versions, one specific to the 403
and one which is a general Book E instruction.  The general
instruction was added only after 2.11 was branched, along with much
other Book E support, and all that will be in 2.12.  The 403-specific
version was added much earlier.

> Why am I asking all this? Well, we are very near to a point where we would
> go with commercial compiler. Actually, this is a last cry before that.

Have you considered purchasing support for the FSF tools?  There are
many companies that provide such support.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]