linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: -mcpu vs. binutils 2.13.90.0.18

To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
Subject: Re: -mcpu vs. binutils 2.13.90.0.18
From: Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 21:59:28 +0200
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Guido Guenther <agx@sigxcpu.org>
In-reply-to: <20030513193625.GA14066@nevyn.them.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20030318154155.GF2613@bogon.ms20.nix> <20030318160303.GN13122@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20030318174241.GG2613@bogon.ms20.nix> <20030318190841.GO13122@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20030318232454.GA19990@bogon.ms20.nix> <20030319001652.GB19189@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20030513113316.GU3889@bogon.ms20.nix> <20030513192735.GA16497@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20030513193625.GA14066@nevyn.them.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
[snip]
> > > Just for completeness: I had to use:
> > >   GCCFLAGS += -mabi=32 -march=r4600 -mtune=r4600 -Wa,--trap
> > > to make gcc-3.3 happy (note the 32 instead of o32).
> > 
> > Yes, IIRC 64 vs. n64 has the same problem.
> 
> That's not quite the same: 64 is o64, n64 is n64.

I don't think so (There's -mabi=o64).
Otherwise I would have built all my NewABI 64bit Executables as
o64 without noticing ever. :-)

> GCC's never called the 32-bit ABI "o32".

True, but it might be clearer if it did.


Thiemo

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>