egcs-1.1.1-1c bug (was Re: major ksyms problem)
Franz.Sirl at munich.netsurf.de
Wed Feb 24 02:00:01 EST 1999
At 15:36 22.02.99 , Tom Vier wrote:
>it's an egcs bug. i think it's not aligning instructions properly, cuz
>i believe the 601 is more strict about alignment. is anyone having
>problems using bsd_comp.o, ppp_deflate.o, and hfs.o on a non-601
>machine built under pre-R5 (egcs-1.1.1-1c)?
What makes you think that it is an egcs bug? I have no problems on 601
(7200/75) with any of the modules you listed. Are you sure you have the
latest modutils (2.1.121 or later) installed?
>i rebuilt bsd_comp.o and ppp_deflate.o w/ egcs-1.0-2e from dr3 and
>they worked perfectly.
>egcs-1.1.1-1c failed using -O0, -O2, and -O3 with all combinations of
>-mcpu=601, -mcpu=604, and -fno-schedule-insns. -fpic did work, however
>it addes an offset table symbol that makes insmod complain.
>is this a know problem?
>> > Feb 21 09:36:18 zero insmod: /lib/modules/2.0.37-osfmach3/net/bsd_comp.o:
>> > Unhandled relocation of type 26 for .L343
Is "Unhandled relocation of type 26" the behaviour for standard compilation
or for -fpic? You can't compile a kernel/modules with -fpic and expect
modutils still to work, modutils only handles the minimum necessary
[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]]
[[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request at lists.linuxppc.org ]]
More information about the Linuxppc-dev