[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Newbie Q: egcs-1.1.2 and newlib-1.8.1
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:34:10 -0500 (CDT)
- From: joel at OARcorp.com (joel at OARcorp.com)
- Subject: Newbie Q: egcs-1.1.2 and newlib-1.8.1
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Steven Johnson wrote:
> I've got the same/similar questions?
> Are the Official version of GCC, GDB and NewLib updated with the RTEMS
This is a continual battle in case no one has noticed over the past few
Each of the projects you list has its own release schedule and sometimes
the RTEMS patches are in sync with those releases and sometimes they are
not. newlib spent some time without an active maintainer and as a result,
there were about 3 releases where newlib did not include the RTEMS patches
that had been submitted.
Unfortunately, I think we just missed the freeze point for gcc 2.95.
We were trying to move all RTEMS targets to elf and improve the C++
support in the RTEMS targets.
> Mostly the patches seem to add in configuration changes.
This has been true in the past. The gdb patch is actually quite large and
includes Eric Valette's and Emmanuel Raguet's remote debug server.
> Ideally, one would think, it would be nice to be at a position where
> patches to the official distribution were no longer necessary.
Yes it would be but this requires coordinating the releases of 5
independent projects. It is a continual battle to keep things in sync and
I know this sounds like I am whining but it is very hard to get to the
point where nothing requires patching. Every time I think it is close,
something happens (usually a good thing :)).
For example, just before the transition to ELF started, the binutils
snapshots did not require RTEMS patches. Once the transition started,
Not long ago, someone at Cygnus gave me a heads up that the MIPS targets
in egcs were undergoing massive C++ improvements and that we should move
from ECOFF to ELF. I certainly could not plan that one but appreciated
And for other tools -- consider newlib. All it takes is someone
submitting a CPU specific optimized memory copy routine to newlib/RTEMS
and BAM! we get a patch for newlib.
You are right that ideally the RTEMS targets would be static and require
no further patches across all the tools. Fortunately, the functionality
of the RTEMS targets improves (ELF and C++, remote debugger, optimized
routines specific to CPUs, more POSIX support, etc.). And this forces
the need for patches while the release cycles are out of sync.
FYI RTEMS is not the only tool that suffers from this. The current public
release of gnat (3.11p) does not include patches for gdb 4.18. binutils
development has been very active lately and as much as they would like to
put out a new release in sync with gcc 2.95, it is simply not ready.
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel at OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985