On Sun, Aug 01, 2021 at 02:23:59PM -0700, Jake Hamby wrote:
> I've just started getting into RISC OS as a hobby project to do
> something with my Raspberry Pi 3, GCC toolchain, and POSIX knowledge.
> I managed to get the GCC 4.7.4 SDK running on my Ubuntu PC, and then
> GCC 10.2.0 and binutils 2.30 as well. So far I've been extremely happy
> and impressed with the quality of the autobuilder and toolchain. I'd
> feared that UnixLib wouldn't be as capable as it is, and I'm happy to
> see familiar GNU EABI and ELF formats.
Welcome! :)
> I've been making a few improvements to the ports and toolchains in my
> own git repo mirrored from Subversion and hosted on GitHub. Feel free
> to integrate any of my changes into the main repo. In fact, I'd prefer
> for any interested users to merge changes from my repo without asking
> me for permission for each one.
>
> https://github.com/jhamby/riscos-gccsdk
That looks like good progress. I don't know how we feel about switching to
GCC 10 as a mainline compiler at this point - Lee, do you have any opinions
as to how stable things are? We might want to take those which work with
GCC 4.7 to begin with, until GCC 10 is something we're happy to rely on.
> You probably don't want to take the patch I made to change the default
> GCC 10 CPU/FPU target from ARMv7-A and VFPv3 to Cortex-A53 and Neon,
> but I've tried to make everything else reasonably generic. Now, on to
> a few areas of difficulty that I'd like to solicit some opinions on
> how to fix.
[snip]
Those are mostly questions for Lee as he owns GCC 10 and Qt stuff, which I
haven't used. But I think some parts aren't yet supported - for example
RISC OS modules.
All of the things in the autobuilder have worked at one time or another, but
not necessarily all at the same time. Because upstream changes so rapidly
it is quite common for things to break a year or two after somebody commits
patches, and we haven't managed to keep on top of the changes. For example,
currently the autobuilder is pulling Debian/stable, but Debian's likely to
change that from buster to bullseye in the next two weeks. So there will
likely be a raft more breakage coming down the line.
That said, adding GCC 10 into the mix is another variable again. For things
that break, perhaps you could try them on 4.7 to confirm that it's an issue
with the package rather than the compiler. Although we'll likely need to
move to a GCC 10 build sometime, so working the kinks out of that will need
to be done anyway.
Theo
_______________________________________________
GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
No comments:
Post a Comment