Re: Binutils on arm : pls advice me how to proceed

[Pedro Alves <pedro_alves at portugalmail dot pt>]

Danny Backx wrote:
> I am having problems applying them to the current CVS version. Almost
> all the diffs fail to apply, I've copied an excerpt below. Am I using
> the wrong version ?
>
>   
Did you get a warning about the files not being found? If so, check that 
you are applying the patch in the correct directory,
or use the -p option. You can always --dry-run before applying the patch.

> I also tried your patch against binutils-2.16.1 - that only produced
> patch failures in one file (tc-arm.c).
>
>   
> 	Danny
>
> On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 11:48 +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
>   
> > Hi Pedro, Hi Danny,
> >
> >    Please accept my apologies in taking so long to reply to your emails. 
> >   I have now had a chance to go over them and the patches that they 
> > contained and then seemed quite reasonable to me.  I have applied them 
> > to my local source tree and checked to see if there were any regressions 
> >   - there were not.
> >
> >    Unfortunately I do not have an arm-wince system at my disposal, so I 
> > cannot check that the (slightly revised) versions of the patches that I 
> > applied allow working binaries to be created, so please can I ask for 
> > your help ?
> >
> >    I am attaching a unified patch which I think contains all of the 
> > changes that you suggested, along with a little bit of code tidying. 
> > Please could you try applying them to a set of binutils sources (from 
> > the mainline of the CVS repository) and testing them to see if they 
> > produce working binaries ?
> >
> >    One thing I am quite worried about is whether partial linking will 
> > work.  (ie using the "ld -r ...." file to create an object file that is 
> > an amalgam of several other object files).  I suspect that there might 
> > be problems with the -8 bias to branch relocations, but without a test 
> > environment I cannot tell for sure.
> >
> >    Thanks very much for perserving with your work, and assuming that you 
> > can confirm that the patch works, I will be happy to check it in with 
> > the ChangeLogs below.
> >
> > Cheers
> >    Nick
> >
> > bfd/ChangeLog
> > 2006-05-10  Pedro Alves  <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>
> >
> > 	* coff-arm.c (ARM_26D, ARM_32, ARM_RVA_32, ARM_SECTION,
> >          ARM_SECREL): Mark WinCE versions of these relocs as partial
> > 	inplace.
> > 	(coff_arm_relocate_section): Adjust addend for WinCE.
> >
> > gas/ChangeLog
> > 2006-05-10  Pedro Alves  <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>
> >
> > 	* config/tc-arm.c (md_pcrel_from_section): Force a bias for	 	relocs 
> > against external symbols for WinCE targets.
> > 	(md_apply_fix): Likewise.
> >
> > ld/ChangeLog
> > 2006-05-10  Pedro Alves  <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>
> >
> > 	* pe-dll.c (autofilter_symbollist): Add Dllmain, 		
> > 	DllMainCRTStartup, _DllMainCRTStartup and .text.
> > 	(autofilter_liblist): Add libcegcc.
> > 	(autofilter_symbolprefixlist): Add __imp_ and .idata$.
> > 	(generate_reloc): Do not skip sections without a SEC_LOAD flag, 	
> > 	they can still contain relocs that need processing.
> > 	Skip the .idata$6 section.
> > 	(jmp_arm_bytes): New array: Contains byte codes for an ARM jump.
> > 	(make_one): Use the new array.
> > 	(make_import_fixup_entry): Use .idata$2 instead of .idata$3.
> > 	* emultempl/pe.em (MajorSubsystemVersion): Set to 3 for armpe.
> >
> >
> >