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. Cheers, -- Guido
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature