[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: powerpc-rtems-4.7-gcc-4.0 patch commited

Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsepius@rtems.org> writes:

> On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 21:00 +0300, Sergei Organov wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsepius@rtems.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.

I know.

> 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
> BSPs.

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.