Re: Problem building GDB for sparc-rtems

[Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsepius@rtems.org>]

On 05/19/2011 12:11 PM, David Paterson wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius
> <ralf.corsepius@rtems.org>  wrote:
>> On 05/19/2011 10:53 AM, David Paterson wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Keith Seitz<keiths@redhat.com>    wrote:
>>>> On 05/16/2011 09:34 AM, David Paterson wrote:
>>>      cd build.gdb-7.2/
>>>      rm -rf *
>>>
>>>      ../../GCCSources/gdb-7.2/configure  --target=sparc-rtems4.10.0
>> FWIW (should not matter, here): The offical target name is
>> "sparc-rtems4.10".
> Thanks Ralf - I'll change the scripts (although as you say it
> shouldn't make a difference).
All patterns in all binutils, gcc and gdb configuration scripts are 
supposed to match on "sparc-rtems*", so it should not actually matter.

>>>> FWIW, I just built sparc-rtems on linux (Fedora 13) without incident from
>>>> the 7.2 tarball, so it should work for you, too.
>> I am building all *-rtems targets fairly frequently without many problems
>> (cf. ftp://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/linux/4.11).
>>
>> However gdb's dependencies are a royal pain and occasionally cause building
>> gdb produce bizarre errors. Which host OS are you using?
> I'm using MinGW under Windows 7. If that's likely to be a problem I could
> set up a VM for Linux.
It likely is a problem.

I am building mingw32 RTEMS packages Canadian-cross under Fedora
c.f. http://www.rtems.org/ftp/pub/rtems/mingw32

http://www.rtems.org/ftp/pub/rtems/mingw32/4.11/rtems-4.11-sparc-rtems4.11-gdb/
contains sparc-rtems4.11-gdb-7.2

(Despite the target name, these packages should also be usable with 
rtems4.10.)

> It all looks OK, and the makefiles seem to be sensible, but I'll check through
> it again.  I've done a diff between the "sparc-rtems" and "sparc-elf" versions
> of the build and nothing obvious jumps out.
I have no idea. As you correctly found out, sparc-rtems*-gdb and 
sparc-elf*-gdb are almost identical.

The only real difference is the official RTEMS packages have patches 
applied, which are not in FSF's gdb.
Dunno, if you are using these patches - If so, timestamps could make a 
difference.

However none of our patches explain your breakdown.

Ralf