linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IP32 - issues with last CVS snapshoot

To: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: IP32 - issues with last CVS snapshoot
From: Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:53:08 -0500
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0502111915510.30117@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <420CEE7F.3080201@astek.fr> <420CF611.5030705@gentoo.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0502111825300.30117@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <420D006E.3000107@total-knowledge.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0502111915510.30117@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:


O64 may not be supported ABI, but it provides us with a feature that is really
usefull:
specifically, it generates 32 bit symbol addresses instead of 64 bit ones.
This cuts
down on code size considerably. If this feature was implemented in toolchain
as separate
switch, O64 hack could go away.


Well, the topic has been beaten to death here, so you don't really need to illuminate me -- it's only due to this popular request I've implemented the ability to do 32-bit builds for 64-bit kernel. I just wonder why people insisting on such a setup don't actually contribute some code to do that cleanly and keep switching between hacks as they stop working one by one...


I believe it was mentioned at some point in time by someone that using "n32" inplace of "o64" might have a similar affect of "o64", but I can't recall what the outcome of that actually was (or whether or not it ever worked).

As if I could be any more vague.


--Kumba

--



--
"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond

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