Re: What binutils version is compatible with gcc 3.3 ?

["Mark D. Baushke" <mdb at gnu dot org>]

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:

> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:03:35AM -0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> > 
> You really can not do combined builds using released versions.  As
> you've found, shared files drift too much.

Well, I suspect it *could* be done, provided that there is a release of
each of the needed versions actually released.

(The odd thing to me is that the binutils-2_14-branch seems to mostly
work, but the top-of-tree trunk does not.)

So, is there any clue as to when binutils 2.14 might be released?
How stable is it at present?

> Although, in general it should work if you just take the newest version
> of each file.  libiberty is always backwards compatible.

Hmmm... a noble goal, but the differences between gcc-3.3 and
binutils-2.13.2.1 shows that make-relative-prefix.c ad physmem.c were
added to gcc-3.3, but that cplus-dem.c had main() ripped out of it
which would mean that trying to build binutils-2.13.2.1 would fail
when that main() was found missing in the building of c++filt.

Sigh.

> > This make will fail due to an undefined reference to lrealpath() when
> > ld/ld-new is being linked.
> > 
> > When I attempted to swap the order of binutils and gcc in the creation
> > of the combined directory, then things fail in a different place. In
> > this case, it is in libgloss while trying to build cygmon.o
> 
> Then the version of libgloss you're using can not be compiled with gcc
> 3.3.  That's a different problem.
> 
> Looks like a missing backslash in a multi-line string.

Yeah, it looks like the trunk version of newlib includes a fix of ending
the asm lines with

	\n\

to make the multi-line character string work.

I wonder when the next newlib version (1.11.1 or 1.12.0 ?) will be
released...
 
> -- 
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Many thanks for your help.

	Thanks,
	-- Mark