Message-ID: <002701c3205e$fc00c770$0100a8c0@acp42g>
From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Cc: "Martin Stromberg" <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
References: <200305221033 DOT MAA05862 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Subject: Fw: (fwd) Re: SIGILL 386 (illegal opcode)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 22:38:01 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

I  have re-directed this response back the appropriate thread in the
subject.

> From: "Martin Stromberg" <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
> To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 8:33 PM
> Subject: Re: GCC 3.3 & LIBC patch #2 - build process change

> > Any other feedback for this patch? Besides the feedback above?
>
> Correct the problem that xaddl is used in libstdcxx.a. The source in
> the gcc 3.3 tar ball looks correct in atomicity.h for 386s (no
> xaddl). But still xaddl is used (according to Andris).

Martin,

This is a different problem than the one that I am trying to resolve with
this patch. This patch is to get LIBC C++ files to build with GCC 3.3 by
adding specific support into the LIBC make process for C++ files.

I am not familiar with the code related to the problem. Can you supply a
patch to fix the problem so I can try it out to see if there are any
regression bugs with building all of the packages that are part of the alpha
release.

I can do about 3 builds in a 8-9 hour period. So far I have re-built the
packages with GCC 3.3 allot of times and have one more patch to supply, this
time for the timezone stuff once I backput some changes that are not
required.

Andrew