Re: biarch cooperation.
Guido Guenther wrote:
> 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.
Then I don't understand the previous comment about differentiating
> > 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),
The transition to n32/n64 systems would be more problematic then,
and it won't save us from Multi-ABI anyway.
> we'd keep the
> later around only for the R3k systems. But I like the full o32/n32/n64
> aproach more.
JFTR, the 32 bit only systems aren't necessarily outdated workstations,
32 bit MIPS is quite popular today (Vendors are e.g. AMD and Toshiba).