Re: gcc tri-arch support
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Good point. Which would be better? -mipsn32/-mipsn64 or just -n32/-n64
as Guido suggested? I don't think the pattern used on other archs helps
us much on this.
-n32/-n64 are already used as toolchain options, -mipsn32/-mipsn64 are
unused yet.
Sounds good. I'll change things to use those names.
I can see linuxthreads is still the easy way out ATM, but it already
is a maintenance millstone, and many architectures already left it.
I wouldn't mind taking a look at NPTL once I have validated everything
else so that I'm back to having changed only one thing at a time.
Which is precisely why I recommend against using it. Those scripts
often assume -(m)32 to mean ILP32 with 32bit register width, and -(m)64
to mean ILP64 with 64bit register width. Mips will need extra
consideration in those cases for proper o32/n32/n64 handling.
I'll drop those and see if I run into the problems again. It's possible
that part of the problem was a general things not working yet.
Currently, I'm building tests suites for all 3 ABIs and comparing the
results as a way to validate the changes.
If anyone would like to try out the packages I'm working on, let me know.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson anderson@netsweng.com
Network & Software Engineering http://www.netsweng.com/
1024D/37A79149: 0791 D3B8 9A4C 2CDC A31F
BD03 0A62 E534 37A7 9149
Reply to: