This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Brian LaPonsey wrote:
I see you have binutils and gdb for mcore-elf, but not an mcore-elf-gcc. I have written a build script that builds all the tools and runs the test suite on the FSF's "plain vanilla" gcc source tree, and I have found that gcc-3.0.4 has far fewer unexpected failures than gcc-3.2.1 for the mcore-elf target (147 vs. 241). In contrast, the test results for powerpc-eabi are something like 19 unexpected failures. The test suite is run with the simulator as a target.
Kudos for getting that far with gcc-3.2.1 and the test suite. I'm still trying to get off my duff and run it here against 3.0.4 to get a baseline. I hadn't thought of running it against the simulator; does the simulator support ppc403/ppc405 and ppc750? That might come in handy here. It might be helpful if you posted a list of the regressions between gcc-3.0.4 and gcc-3.2.1. Montavista Linux 3.0 uses a gcc-3.2.x compiler, it'd be interesting to see if they have resolved some of those. - Dan ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |