This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH]: Set little endian flag when linking SH arch tests for little endian multilibs
Nick Clifton wrote:
How about having a new board_info variable which, if defined, supplies
the name of the little- or big- endian switch to use ? eg (untested):
[snip]
Then we can just define bigendian_switch and littleendian_switch in
sh-hms.exp (or whatever dejagnu board file is being used).
The problem is that the sh linker continues to take -EB/-EL, but the sh
assembler uses -big/-little. According to my examination of the code the
pj assembler is the same.
Your solution looks good, but requires separate variables for assembler
and linker, and then the the big_or_little_endian function needs to know
which is needed.
BTW, Dejagnu 1.4.4 uses sh-sim, not sh-hms.
@@ -117,9 +119,11 @@ proc test_arch_error { file1 file2 resul
set name2 [file tail $file2]
set rootname2 [file rootname $name2]
+ set flags [big_or_little_endian]
+
# This must use -r to prevent LD trying to relocate the
(unrealistic) file
- send_log "$LD -r -o ${rootname1}_${rootname2}.o $file1 $file2\n"
- catch "exec $LD -r -o ${rootname1}_${rootname2}.o $file1 $file2"
ld_output
+ send_log "$LD $flags -r -o ${rootname1}_${rootname2}.o $file1
$file2\n"
+ catch "exec $LD $flags -r -o ${rootname1}_${rootname2}.o $file1
$file2" ld_output
send_log $ld_output
if {[string equal $ld_output ""] == 1} then {
For reasons I do not understand I found that if I included the above
part of the patch to arch.exp I ended up with *more* SH linker testsuite
failures (for little endian multilibs) than without it. This was
another thing that I was going to investigate when I had more time. If
you can show that it does reduce the number of testsuite failures
however then I would be happy to accept it.
Hmmm, did you use both parts of the patch? You say that I have had time
to test this, but actually the reason I had not submitted the patch was
that I had not yet finished testing it. I suspect that a few more bits
are needed. I also have a few more adjustments to the arch.exp script to
submit. Also, this has got put on the back burner for the last few weeks
so it isn't fresh in my mind any more.
I'll look into it. Not sure when though.
Andrew