linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: -mcpu vs. binutils 2.13.90.0.18

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Subject: Re: -mcpu vs. binutils 2.13.90.0.18
From: Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 17:12:12 +0200
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030514124924.26213A-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20030513222215.GA440@bogon.ms20.nix> <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030514124924.26213A-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> 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).

Exactly this is the sort of confusion which makes the naming unfortunate.
-32 and -64 had never much to do with 32/64 bit but designate ABIs.

> Additional aliases of the "n64" and "o32"
> form would make more confusion, IMHO. 

I disagree.


Thiemo

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