On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 03:11:40PM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: > >> Again, please correct me if I am wrong. From my understanding of the > >> incompatibility thread it seems that the big difference is in performance, > >> but that the current gcc emits code that is fine for both. > >> > >> There are several cases already in the archive where we do not have > >> two archs for performance gains (mips1 vs mips3, i386 vs i686, > >> etc). > > No, it is not same as i386 vs i686. > Please refer the mail written by NIIBE Yutaka <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-superh/2001/debian-superh-200109/msg00011.html This seems to say that sh3 binaries are fine for sh4, but that the entire binary (including all shared libraries) must be built at the same optimization level, or the ABI changes. > The object and/or shared library are *not* compatible between SH3 > and SH4, so we can not mix SH3 and SH4 binary on the same environmet. > We can run i686 optimized binaries on i386 binaries environment. > But we can not run SH4 optimized binaries on sh3 binary environment. This means that it won't be possible to rebuild things to be optimized (easily). (One could rebuild the entire path of shared libraries and use some of the linker tricks tried with glibc in the past). It's still the case where a pure sh3 environment would work perfectly fine on sh4. Does this ABI change also happen with static libraries? -- Ryan Murray, Debian Developer (email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org) The opinions expressed here are my own.
Description: PGP signature