| To: | Guido Guenther <agx@sigxcpu.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: -mcpu vs. binutils 2.13.90.0.18 |
| From: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl> |
| Date: | Wed, 14 May 2003 12:53:32 +0200 (MET DST) |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <20030513222215.GA440@bogon.ms20.nix> |
| Organization: | Technical University of Gdansk |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Guido Guenther wrote:
> Looking at gcc-3.3:
>
> #define ABI_32 0
> #define ABI_N32 1
> #define ABI_64 2
> #define ABI_EABI 3
> #define ABI_O64 4
>
> The naming is very "unfortunate", though. We have (n32,64) and (32,o64).
> Wouldn't it help to at least allow for n64 and o32 commandline options?
> -mabi=32 and -mabi=64 will have to be kept for Irix compatibility
> though, I think.
Why unfortunate? You use "32" and "64" for normal stuff, and the rest
for special cases ("n32" isn't really 32-bit and "o64" isn't really 64-bit
-- both lie in the middle). Additional aliases of the "n64" and "o32"
form would make more confusion, IMHO.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Branch relocation fixing at Kernel-compiling with Debian-toolchain, Guido Guenther |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | r4k Indigo 1 (was Re: Branch relocation fixing at Kernel-compiling with Debian-toolchain), Robin Humble |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: -mcpu vs. binutils 2.13.90.0.18, Guido Guenther |
| Next by Thread: | Re: -mcpu vs. binutils 2.13.90.0.18, Thiemo Seufer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |