linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: -mcpu vs. binutils 2.13.90.0.18

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>