This is the mail archive of the
newlib@sourceware.org
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: newlib/libc/machine/m68k/memcpy.S broken for cpu32
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 12:39:47PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> On 08/02/10 12:24 PM, Josef Wolf wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:43:14PM +0100, Josef Wolf wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>> --- newlib-1.18.0.orig/newlib/libc/machine/m68k/memcpy.S 2010-02-08 15:23:22.719360886 +0100
>>> +++ newlib-1.18.0/newlib/libc/machine/m68k/memcpy.S 2009-12-14 21:50:53.000000000 +0100
>>> @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
>>>
>>> #include "m68kasm.h"
>>>
>>> -#if defined (__mcoldfire__) || defined (__mc68010__) || defined (__mc68020__) || defined (__mc68030__) || defined (__mc68040__) || defined (__mc68060__)
>>> +#if defined (__mcoldfire__) || defined (__mcpu32__) || defined (__mc68010__) || defined (__mc68020__) || defined (__mc68030__) || defined (__mc68040__) || defined (__mc68060__)
>>> # define MISALIGNED_OK 1
>>> #else
>>> # define MISALIGNED_OK 0
>>
>> Although I apply this patch, I still get code as if MISALIGNED_OK==1. Any
>> idea why this patch still defines MISALIGNED_OK==1 when -mcpu32 option
>> is given to gcc? Does -mcpu32 imply some other -mc680x0 option?
>
> Your patch is reversed. It is adding __mcpu32__ to the list that sets
> MISALIGNED_OK 1.
Oh, I did the diff wrong when I posted. But I actually compiled with
__mcpu32__ removed. Sorry for the confusion.
> Have you verified that __mcpu32__ is not in the list for the file end up
> building with?
yes.
But I am not sure my code is linked against the correct libc. How can I check
which file was used for linking?