Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:43:39 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: Justin Hibbits <jrh29@alumni.cwru.edu>, Sean Bruno <sbruno@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>, sparc64@freebsd.org, Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Subject: Re: Sparc64 doesn't care about you, and you shouldn't care about Sparc64 Message-ID: <CANCZdfrJfNo2qUn4EG%2BB2ZwN5QgryEPQwPYNs96B46%2Bm6hzonQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2ALaBg7jzQSTqkosb9wV=9RMdmc%2BqY2yGWvznt7=yvc7Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <563A5893.1030607@freebsd.org> <2AAC0EF3-528B-476F-BA9C-CDC3004465D0@bsdimp.com> <20151108155501.GA1901@alchemy.franken.de> <CAHSQbTDEUJ=R4BTAx%2BVF55Xb%2BmObhHLgM09%2Bxp-=uP8LbfeoUA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPyFy2ALaBg7jzQSTqkosb9wV=9RMdmc%2BqY2yGWvznt7=yvc7Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 8 November 2015 at 20:46, Justin Hibbits <jrh29@alumni.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I 100% agree with you on this. If we can update binutils to the
> > latest and greatest, I believe powerpc64 would be able to work with
> > clang. I've backported several patches, with IBM's permission, to
> > binutils for handling new relocations, etc. However, not all patches
> > are straight forward, and currently we're missing something, which is
> > causing odd segfaults in ld(1), when linking as(1). No other binary,
> > only as(1). I've tried looking through it, but the binutils code is a
> > mess. I'm sure the bug that's getting hit was fixed with newer
> > binutils, but have had a very hard time trying to test with it.
>
> We have support in the tree to use an external binutils automatically
> - we use this on arm64, which is completely unsupported by the in-tree
> binutils. External binutils is enabled by setting
> CROSS_BINUTILS_PREFIX=/usr/local/${TARGET_ARCH}-freebsd/bin/
>
> This happens automatically if the target specifies BINUTILS_BOOTSTRAP
> in BROKEN_OPTIONS -- for example, arm64 sets
> BROKEN_OPTIONS+=BINUTILS BINUTILS_BOOTSTRAP GCC GCC_BOOTSTRAP GDB
>
> I'd suggest that the first step in any of these discussions is to use
> this to test building with the binutils port. We know it won't work
> for mips today because upstream bintuils lacks FreeBSD/mips support.
> It may work for other targets though. Even if it doesn't the same work
> needs to be done regardless of whether the target uses an up-to-date
> binutils from ports or from the src tree.
Speaking of CROSS_BINUTILS_PREFIX, we need to unify CROSS*PREFIX stuff
with the CROSS_TOOLCHAIN stuff. Two different ways to specify thing.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfrJfNo2qUn4EG%2BB2ZwN5QgryEPQwPYNs96B46%2Bm6hzonQ>