Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
PropGCC: Updated Packages? — Parallax Forums

PropGCC: Updated Packages?

SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
edited 2013-10-31 04:16 in Propeller 1
Hi, Are there any plans for updated packages for PropGCC? The current packages on the downloads page are pretty old, especially since the build is broken.

Latest Propgcc Packages:
Windows: June 1 2013
Mac: May 17 2013
Linux: June 2012

As you can see, they're at least 5 months old for Windows and 17 months old for Linux.

Comments

  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-10-30 12:38
    SRLM wrote: »
    Hi, Are there any plans for updated packages for PropGCC? The current packages on the downloads page are pretty old, especially since the build is broken.

    Latest Propgcc Packages:
    Windows: June 1 2013
    Mac: May 17 2013
    Linux: June 2012

    As you can see, they're at least 5 months old for Windows and 17 months old for Linux.
    The more recent PropGCC packages support P2 but that support is now obsolete until Chip comes up with the final instruction set. I'm waiting until that happens to update the P2 support and after that we'll likely make another package from the default branch.
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-10-30 12:43
    SRLM wrote: »
    especially since the build is broken.
    I just noticed this. What do you mean by "the build is broken"? I'm able to build the default branch from Google Code.
  • SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
    edited 2013-10-30 13:01
    David Betz wrote: »
    I just noticed this. What do you mean by "the build is broken"? I'm able to build the default branch from Google Code.

    I have a thread on that here: http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php/151005-PropGCC-build-fails-on-Ubuntu-13.10

    Since I need to do some programming, I'm looking into it right now. It seems to be an issue with binutils being out of date.
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-10-30 13:03
    SRLM wrote: »
    I have a thread on that here: http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php/151005-PropGCC-build-fails-on-Ubuntu-13.10

    Since I need to do some programming, I'm looking into it right now. It seems to be an issue with binutils being out of date.
    Didn't someone point out in the thread that you linked to that this is actually a problem with texinfo and that there is a patch to fix it?
  • SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
    edited 2013-10-30 13:15
    I think he's talking about the patch here. I did follow the diff there as well as I could, but that's where I'm at. Aka, it needs more for the binutils here.
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-10-30 13:20
    SRLM wrote: »
    I think he's talking about the patch here. I did follow the diff there as well as I could, but that's where I'm at. Aka, it needs more for the binutils here.
    Sorry, I'm not really familiar with texinfo. Is this because GCC is using some deprecated feature of texinfo? Why would this be suddenly failing. As far as I know, we haven't changed the texinfo stuff in the generic GCC tree.
  • SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
    edited 2013-10-30 13:39
    David Betz wrote: »
    Sorry, I'm not really familiar with texinfo. Is this because GCC is using some deprecated feature of texinfo? Why would this be suddenly failing. As far as I know, we haven't changed the texinfo stuff in the generic GCC tree.

    It seems that the new version of texinfo changed some of the syntax. For example, @colophon and @cygnus now need to be @@colophon and @@cygnus. That was the easy part. After that there seems to be more syntax errors that pop up. Right now I'm looking at disabling doc building entirely. Do we really need them? Unless it's for the man pages, I don't think so.
  • SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
    edited 2013-10-30 13:40
    BTW, I also tried dropping in the newest version of binutils from GCC (via git clone git://sourceware.org/git/binutils-gdb.git), but that didn't compile at all. Do you know what files were changed for the PropGCC distribution?
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-10-30 14:20
    SRLM wrote: »
    It seems that the new version of texinfo changed some of the syntax. For example, @colophon and @cygnus now need to be @@colophon and @@cygnus. That was the easy part. After that there seems to be more syntax errors that pop up. Right now I'm looking at disabling doc building entirely. Do we really need them? Unless it's for the man pages, I don't think so.
    Unbelieveable. They actually changed the syntax of texinfo? Isn't there some backward compatiblity mode you can enable?
  • SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
    edited 2013-10-30 14:33
    David Betz wrote: »
    Unbelieveable. They actually changed the syntax of texinfo? Isn't there some backward compatiblity mode you can enable?

    I don't know. I'm going through right now and letting it build, and every time it fails diff'ing the failed bit against the current GCC sources. So far I've found 4 things that need to be changed in the PropGCC source in order to build. There may be more, but I have to try rebuilding on every change (currently fails at 7 minutes, out of a 20 min build on my machine).
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-10-30 14:34
    SRLM wrote: »
    I don't know. I'm going through right now and letting it build, and every time it fails diff'ing the failed bit against the current GCC sources. So far I've found 4 things that need to be changed in the PropGCC source in order to build. There may be more, but I have to try rebuilding on every change (currently fails at 7 minutes, out of a 20 min build on my machine).
    I have another question. Will "fixing" this for Ubuntu break the build for other platforms that may not be using this newer version of texinfo yet. Should the fixes be placed in conditionals?
  • SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
    edited 2013-10-30 14:37
    David Betz wrote: »
    I have another question. Will "fixing" this for Ubuntu break the build for other platforms that may not be using this newer version of texinfo yet. Should the fixes be placed in conditionals?

    Maybe. I'll list the changes, and somebody with an older version will have to try it out.
  • SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
    edited 2013-10-30 14:43
    David Betz wrote: »
    Unbelieveable. They actually changed the syntax of texinfo? Isn't there some backward compatiblity mode you can enable?

    It may be just that the new version is more strict. Most of the errors are "Require @item before @itemx" (and most of the original PropGCC is "@itemx ... @itemx").
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-10-30 14:56
    SRLM wrote: »
    It may be just that the new version is more strict. Most of the errors are "Require @item before @itemx" (and most of the original PropGCC is "@itemx ... @itemx").
    There are plans to move to the latest version of GCC but that has been stalled waiting for P2.
  • SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
    edited 2013-10-30 14:58
    David Betz wrote: »
    There are plans to move to the latest version of GCC but that has been stalled waiting for P2.

    Yay! That's one of my PropGCC questions that I have on a yellow sticky. I'm looking forward to 4.8.

    Also, it would be good if there was an automatic method of updating binutils and gcc with the Propeller specific things. Doing the whole build/debug cycle is about a 30 minute process to get the updates.

    Are there any plans to integrate the Propeller GCC stuff into the main GCC repository?
  • SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
    edited 2013-10-30 18:26
    The workaround is to downgrade texinfo: http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php/151005-PropGCC-build-fails-on-Ubuntu-13.10?p=1216485&viewfull=1#post1216485
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-10-30 18:41
    SRLM wrote: »
    The workaround is to downgrade texinfo: http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php/151005-PropGCC-build-fails-on-Ubuntu-13.10?p=1216485&viewfull=1#post1216485
    I'm glad you found a solution but I'm sorry it had to be to downgrade to an older version of texinfo. I hope we can work on upgrading to the latest GCC soon. I assume that will fix this problem.
  • SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
    edited 2013-10-30 18:43
    David Betz wrote: »
    I'm glad you found a solution but I'm sorry it had to be to downgrade to an older version of texinfo. I hope we can work on upgrading to the latest GCC soon. I assume that will fix this problem.

    It seems like it will fix it. Everything that I copied over from the mainline distributions was already updated.

    I think it will be quite a bit of work to upgrade the versions, since the Propeller specific stuff seems to be integrated pretty tightly into many files. Is there any plans to contribute PropGCC back to the main GCC?
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-10-31 04:16
    SRLM wrote: »
    It seems like it will fix it. Everything that I copied over from the mainline distributions was already updated.

    I think it will be quite a bit of work to upgrade the versions, since the Propeller specific stuff seems to be integrated pretty tightly into many files. Is there any plans to contribute PropGCC back to the main GCC?
    I don't think much of the generic GCC code has been changed in the port to the Propeller. The Propeller stuff is mostly in the target-specific files. Yes, we do want to upstream our Propeller support but that involves a fair amount of effort and I don't know if Parallax has the resources to tackle that right now. Maybe after P2 is wildly successful!!
Sign In or Register to comment.