[Top] [All Lists]

Re: -mcpu vs. binutils

To: Guido Guenther <>
Subject: Re: -mcpu vs. binutils
From: Thiemo Seufer <>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 22:50:21 +0200
In-reply-to: <20030513201144.GY3889@bogon.ms20.nix>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <20030318154155.GF2613@bogon.ms20.nix> <> <20030318174241.GG2613@bogon.ms20.nix> <> <20030318232454.GA19990@bogon.ms20.nix> <> <20030513113316.GU3889@bogon.ms20.nix> <> <20030513201144.GY3889@bogon.ms20.nix>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
Guido Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:27:35PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Guido Guenther wrote:
> [..snip..] 
> > > to make gcc-3.3 happy (note the 32 instead of o32).
> > 
> > Yes, IIRC 64 vs. n64 has the same problem.
> I think 64 is o64 not n64.

Strange, you are now the second to say so. Where does this idea stem from?

I just had a look at the gcc sources, the mips*-linux config doesn't
support o64 at all.


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