Subject: Re: failed to compile glibc 2.1.2 - BFD_RELOC_16_PCREL_S2 problem

From: Ulf Carlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:46:33 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Jun Sun wrote:

> 
> I am having this problem while I am trying to build glibc v2.1.2.  Does
> anybody know about this problem?  Do I need some MIPS patch for building
> this?  Thanks.

You can't use glibc 2.1.2 on MIPS, try glibc 2.2 from the official cvs tree
instead.  Andreas Jaeger posted an announcement for glibc 2.2 on MIPS to this
list last Friday with build instructions.

> BFD_RELOC_16_PCREL_S2 relocation in this object file format
> make[2]: *** [/root/rpm/BUILD/glibc-obj/setjmp/setjmp.o] Error 1

This is because it's not compiling as PIC.

Ulf

---

From: Andreas Jaeger <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Apr 2000 10:53:38 +0200

>>>>> Jun Sun writes:

 > Ulf Carlsson wrote:
>> You can't use glibc 2.1.2 on MIPS, 

 > Is there a specific reason why I can't use glibc 2.1.2?  We have been
 > using this version for other platforms (ppc, i386).  It would be nice to
 > stick with the same version for MIPS.

It's just that nobody did the work of porting glibc.  A lot of has
changed between glibc 2.0 and 2.1 (and also between 2.1 and 2.2).
I've decided to port glibc 2.2 for MIPS.  This involved a number of
patches and but I don't have the time to backport everything - and I
will not support such a backport at all.

All my glibc 2.2 patches have been added to the glibc archives and
therefore will be in the official sources of 2.2.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs [email-masked]
   private [email-masked]

---

From: Ralf Baechle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:06:03 -0700

> therefore will be in the official sources of 2.2.

All in all I think that given the work that has been invested into making
a solid 2.2 port 2.2 might soon be the better choice than 2.0 and
source compatibility issues should make a port of 2.1 mostly a non-issue.

  Ralf

---

From: "Jay Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 07:50:36 -0400

> source compatibility issues should make a port of 2.1 mostly a non-issue.

If my builds of 2.1 are any indication:

2.0 may still be the better choice on very space-constrained platforms until
there are good options for reducing the size of 2.2.  I mean, 2.2 is not
huge, but on devices with 2M non-volatile store *total*, it's an obvious
target.

I am not volunteering to work on this (yet), but I suspect that people who
care intensely about size will have to start digging around in the link
maps.  H. J. Lu has done some of the work in this direction already.

On the other hand, maybe the really tiny devices will go away.

Jay

---

From: "Jay Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 08:43:33 -0400

> huge, but on devices with 2M non-volatile store *total*, it's an obvious

To which I should add: I am very grateful for the work on 2.2.  It needs to
be done.  Many people will benefit from it, including me.  Great thanks to
Andreas!

The problems with code size are not Andreas's fault... :-)

Jay

---

From: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 20:22:11 +0200 (CEST)

> maps.  H. J. Lu has done some of the work in this direction already.

FYI, on PPC some people are working on kernel size optimization, ranging from
automatically throwing away never used functions and data at link time to
getting rid of all the kernel messages (I heard that's about 150 kB of textual
data).

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- Linux/{m68k~Amiga,PPC~CHRP} -- [email-masked]

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds