[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: powerpc-rtems-4.7-gcc-4.0 patch commited
- Date: 18 Feb 2005 13:26:00 +0300
- From: Sergei Organov <osv at topconrd dot ru>
- Subject: Re: powerpc-rtems-4.7-gcc-4.0 patch commited
Ralf Corsepius <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 21:00 +0300, Sergei Organov wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > [...]
> > > m505;@mcpu=505@mrelocatable-lib@mno-eabi@mstrict-align
> > To further qualify the current situation. There is mpc5xx CPU support in
> > the tree that has nothing to do with mpc505/mpc509. Instead it targets
> > mpc555 (and maybe mpc565 and mpc566) that are quite different from
> > 505/509. If this multilib variant is supposed to support this mpc5xx
> > port, I think it should use another name and mcpu= target.
> You can not invent -mcpu=NAME's at free will.
> These names are hard-coded into GCC and you will have to choose one from
> the set of NAMEs GCC offers to you.
> > Well, in fact I don't think there will be any difference in compiled
> > code if you change mcpu=505 to mcpu=555 as both seem to share the same
> > core.
> There is no mcpu=555 in GCC.
> All I do now, is to offer an m505 multilib variant, because this variant
> has been what mpc5xx users seem to have preferred to use for their
It just seems to me that there would be less surprises if the multilib
variant is called 'mpc5xx', not 'mpc505'. Well, not a big deal anyway.