| To: | Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:04:10 +0000 |
| Cc: | gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Linux MIPS List <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, rdsandiford@googlemail.com |
| In-reply-to: | <490FF63A.7010900@gentoo.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <490A90F4.6040601@gentoo.org> <490C05A9.9070707@gentoo.org> <87abcjibsl.fsf@firetop.home> <490CA4C8.40904@gentoo.org> <87tzargrn4.fsf@firetop.home> <490CEDB9.6030600@gentoo.org> <87prleh2hc.fsf@firetop.home> <490EBDE2.6010709@gentoo.org> <87myggilk2.fsf@firetop.home> <490FF63A.7010900@gentoo.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:14:02AM -0500, Kumba wrote: >> Agreed, but that's just as true of option 1. Each option is as correct >> as the other. It's just a question of whether we need the combination: >> >> -mips1 -mllsc -mfix-r10000 >> >> to be accepted, or whether we can treat it as a compile-time error. > > Hmm, which do you think makes sense? From a usage perspective, most It's a crude way of asking for a generic MIPS binary that runs on anything but works best on MIPS II+. Makes me wonder if there is a point in having a single gcc option, something like -march=generic which selects something like this, including all workarounds? Ralf |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Glibc, Kumba |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc, Kumba |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |