[Top] [All Lists]

Re: -mcpu vs. binutils

To: Thiemo Seufer <>
Subject: Re: -mcpu vs. binutils
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:38:45 +0200 (MET DST)
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
Original-recipient: rfc822;
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Thiemo Seufer wrote:

> >  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.

 It's not about whether we agree or not -- it's about letting a user make
a choice what suits him better.  We need not force anyone to accept our
points of view -- it's one of the main advantages of free software. 

 Also I would like to allow glibc to be configured without n32 and won't
object disallowing (n)64 alternatively.  I already run kernels that
support o32 and (n)64 only (o32 is temporary, of course, until glibc
supports (n)64), so it's not true an (n)64-capable system always supports

 BTW, you may want a program to be built as (n)64 whenever it uses mmap() 
and can operate on the so called "large files".  So there may be
significantly more programs requiring the (n)64 format than it may seem at
the first thought. 


+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+        e-mail:, PGP key available        +

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