[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: biarch cooperation.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:23:53PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> This won't work well for MIPS. Targets are mips*-*-linux* and
> mips64*-*-linux*, the latter will usually support all three ABIs.
I think the other architectures also configure as e.g. sparc-linux
although their gcc can produce sparc64 binaries. We should probably do
the same. The patches against gcc 3.4 are minimal to achieve this (on my
list after I was able to build c++) and our binutils already handle n32
and n64.

> Let this better refer to the ABI, like mips or mips_o32, mips_n32, mips_n64.
> There is already too much confusion around the different mips* names:
I _fully_ agree.

> It's probably best to use -mabi=n32 on a "MIPS64" system as default,
> with exceptions for libraries, which should provide all three ABI
> variants somehow, and exceptions for (very) large applications, which
> are of little use in a 32 bit address space (and thus need -mabi=64).
Yept. Another solution would be to really split mips into mips
(supporting o32 only) and mips64 (supporting n32 and n64), we'd keep the
later around only for the R3k systems. But I like the full o32/n32/n64
aproach more.
 -- Guido

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: