barebox compilation with gcc 4.5.2 and ptxdist

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 16:20 Tue 26 Jul     , Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 07/26/2011 03:56 PM, Andre Naujoks wrote:
> > Hello.
> > 
> > We are currently trying to compile a barebox with the git version of
> > ptxdist and the git version of the OSELAS generic Toolchain for powerpc.
> > 
> > Also the current 2011.07.0 release of barebox.
> > 
> > We are having some problems during the build, which I think are a result
> > of some changes in gcc's optimizations (since 4.4.something). GCC uses
> > some functions on the ppc platform to optimze the size of the resulting
> > binary, which are only present in the libgcc.a.
> > 
> > The compile stage works fine up tp the last linker step:
> > 
> >   CC      arch/ppc/lib/time.o
> >   AS      arch/ppc/lib/misc.o
> >   CC      arch/ppc/lib/ppclinux.o
> >   CC      arch/ppc/lib/board_data.o
> >   LD      arch/ppc/lib/built-in.o
> >   LD      barebox
> > common/built-in.o: In function `mapset':
> > hush.c:(.text.mapset+0x44): undefined reference to `_restgpr_30_x'
> > common/built-in.o: In function `syntax_err':
> > hush.c:(.text.syntax_err+0x34): undefined reference to `_restgpr_30_x'
> > common/built-in.o: In function `done_command':
> > hush.c:(.text.done_command+0x94): undefined reference to `_restgpr_29_x'
> > common/built-in.o: In function `done_pipe':
> > hush.c:(.text.done_pipe+0x5c): undefined reference to `_restgpr_29_x'
> > common/built-in.o: In function `is_assignment':
> > hush.c:(.text.is_assignment+0x8c): undefined reference to `_restgpr_27_x'
> > common/built-in.o: In function `b_addchr':
> > hush.c:(.text.b_addchr+0x8c): undefined reference to `_restgpr_28_x'
> > common/built-in.o: In function `b_addqchr':
> > hush.c:(.text.b_addqchr+0x78): undefined reference to `_restgpr_29_x'
> > ...
> > 
> > 
> > This goes on for a few pages.
> > 
> > As far as I can see, the possibilities I have here, is to either
> > integrate the missing functions out of the gcc sources into barebox, or
> > make barebox link with libgcc, which seems surprisingly difficult, due
> > to the unfamiliar (to me) build process. A simple LDFLAGS_barebox+=-l..
> > -L.. did not help here.
> > 
> > Am I right with this assumption, or am I missing something else here?
> 
> We don't want to link barebox against libgcc, that's bad style. I
> suggest to port arch/powerpc/lib/crtsavres.S from the linux kernel to
> barebox.
> 
agreed at 100%

Best Regards,
J.