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: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:50:32 +0200
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030515133141.16026A-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20030514184256.GE8833@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030515133141.16026A-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, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> 
> > >  Of course the choice of the default should be configurable (for binutils
> > > it probably already is
> > 
> > It isn't, and probably will never be. Of course you could introduce
> > just another configuration, with the bfd vector of your choice as
> > default.
> 
>  Hmm, I would assume "mipsn32*-linux" defaults to n32 and "mips64*-linux" 
> -- to (n)64.  It isn't the case, indeed.

IMHO it's not particularily useful to have both of these. I assume a n64
capable system will always implement n32 also, for better performance
and less memory consumption, and the majority of applications will run
as n32. IOW, there's little need for a n64-defaulting configuration.

But IIRC we disagree about this point.


Thiemo

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