Re: cross-toolchain and x86 target status
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Nikita> P.S. Another interesting issue is tool naming. How should
> Nikita> tools be named: i386-linux-gcc or i586-linux-gcc? And when
> Nikita> comes to multilib, should 'i386-linux-gcc -m64' be the way to
> Nikita> build for x86_86, or there should be separate
> Nikita> x86_64-linux-gcc? And what about binutils? Btw, same issue
> Nikita> exists on s390/s390x and on sparc/sparc64. Looks that a
> Nikita> consistent way is to make any compiler capable to build for
> Nikita> every compatable target, but to build by default for the
> Nikita> target that is in it's name. E.g. i386-linux-gcc by default
> Nikita> builds core for i386, i686-linux-gcc builds code optimized for
> Nikita> 686, and x86_64-linux-gcc by default builds for x86_64. But
> Nikita> all those are several frontends for single compiler binary in
> Nikita> gcc-lib/, so 'i386-linux-gcc -m64' could be actually the same
> Nikita> as 'x86_64-linux-gcc'. But I've never seen things done this
> Nikita> way, so it probably is not easy, and it's not clear whether it
> Nikita> is worth effort or not.
>
>
> The same problem arises for ARM. gcc can target any of the ARM
> processors, but fails to be multilib for them, especially wrt
> big/little endian issues.
Are there any ARM big endian CPUs? I've never heared of such ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBm8oRv3x5OskTLdsRAodlAKCAD/wwCQ3tT5aQcpCo81mGfWCFAQCePvWc
zfefsRGvqLH3UVz02seRrBY=
=PTYa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: